3 ms·
It's not wrong. Linux does not have a great security track record, it was built on completely different security principles than the ones we have today. You can
by cedws 3y ago
It's not wrong. Linux does not have a great security track record, it was built on completely different security principles than the ones we have today. You can find public criticism from Theo de Raadt and grsecurity if you want to find out more.
It's a kernel that has served us well, especially considering its ubiquity, but it will never be a "secure" kernel.
- vlovich123 3y agoI think it’s a shock when compared with the insecurity of Windows also forgetting that that was the reality on the ground in the 90s and that Windows also had a larger share. Windows has since hardened their security model and could be a more secure out of the box experience than Linux (eg shipping with TPM and FDE set up correctly). But yeah, there’s plenty of things you’d do differently if you wanted to properly secure Linux. It just shows that economically that’s not the most important thing for companies using Linux.
- cedws 3y agoI think you are confusing Linux the Kernel with Linux-based operating systems. The original quote from the README was referencing the kernel and made no comparison to Windows or the NT kernel.
- vlovich123 3y agoThe Linux kernel and distributions is what I’m talking about so yes compared with NT kernel and windows as a distribution. The design choices you’d make to build a secure OS (kernel and user space) looks very different. The microkernel design is a more secure design but techniques to make it work fast took a very long time to develop (+ computer HW also got fast enough that the overhead is no longer as big of a deal + we have multithreading everywhere that microkernel can sometimes exploit more naturally).