this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
339 points (85.4% liked)

linuxmemes

21282 readers
327 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
  •  

    Please report posts and comments that break these rules!


    Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.

    founded 2 years ago
    MODERATORS
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] foggy@lemmy.world 61 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    If you think being on Linux makes you immune for attacks, I have bad news for you.

    [–] kekmacska@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    there are much less vulrenabilities on Linux. No system is totally unpenetrable, but having 2-5 vulrebabilities is always better than having 30-40

    [–] jawa21@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 22 hours ago

    VMS is really fucking close to impenetrable.

    [–] foggy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    I've got a link for you to click, Mr super secure OS user. I promise your OS will protect you.

    [–] navi@lemmy.tespia.org 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

    Here I have a cool program to install. Just pipe this link into bash really quick...

    [–] kn33@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

    With sudo. Can't forget that or it won't work.

    [–] kekmacska@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

    you are just exploiting my words. I never said Linux will protect me whatever happens. But it will have a better protection inherently, than any windows

    [–] foggy@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

    You’re holding onto a long-standing misconception: Linux is not inherently more secure than Windows. In fact, the opposite can be true.

    The reason Linux seems safer is because it has a much smaller market share. Attackers don’t build massive botnets to target misconfigured Linux systems the way they do for Windows. But that’s not security—that’s just security through obscurity, which doesn’t hold up if someone is targeting you specifically.

    Let me clarify my earlier point about “a link for you to click.” If an attacker is specifically targeting someone using Linux, they’re not any better protected than someone on Windows. At that point, it comes down to how well the user understands and secures their system.

    The key difference? Windows actively warns you about misconfigurations that open you up to attack. For example, try enabling Remote Desktop Protocol—Windows will warn you repeatedly about the risks. Linux, on the other hand, won’t stop you. You can misconfigure SSH, open ports, or skip updates without a single warning. If someone’s after you and you’ve made a mistake? You’re toast.

    Linux is powerful, but it doesn’t hold your hand the way Windows does. If you think it’s inherently secure, you’re just relying on the fact that fewer bots are looking for you—not that the system itself is protecting you.

    [–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 4 points 1 day ago

    Realistically the difference is in how Linux mitigates the common vectors for attack that Windows doesn't. Most malware targeting individual workstations gets in by either supply chain attack, vulnerable web renderer or by tricking the user into installing it.

    Centralized repositories with centralized build tooling limits opportunities for supply chain attacks, plus helps prevent users from accidentally downloading a Trojan when trying to grab other software. Containerizing web applications helps limit browser exploits, and less "features" phoning home means a default incoming-deny firewall policy will largely prevent most vulnerabilities from being remotely serious.

    So for an individual workstation, Linux is significantly safer from viruses. In the enterprise it's a completely different story where the threat environment does require defense in depth regardless of your choices of vendors

    [–] LordKitsuna@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

    The way I have always liked to put it specifically is that Linux is not inherently more secure than windows. However Linux is inherently easier to secure than Windows. Namespaces, apparmor, seccomp-bpf, and a very fine grain limited vs super user permission system. Just to name a few top level things.

    The tools are all there on basically any system, very well documented, relatively easy to use. And once you set them up they will not randomly change things on you. I say this as a system administrator having to deal with Windows constantly where Microsoft decides that they are smarter than you and fuck your group policy edits because we put out this update and we think this option is better so we're going to revert like half the shit you did. Over half my fucking job and security is just checking what did Microsoft fuck up about my security set up with this update, and trying to rotate through security vendor 2094726 to fill in the absolute basic security processes that windows doesn't provide

    [–] babybus@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

    It probably makes you a less likely target though. I suppose that bots scan for known Widows vulnerabilities simply because that platform has a much higher market share among desktop operating systems. Besides, Linux distros offer a unified way to update all your software. On Windows, third-party software is often installed and maintained manually.