You must log in or register to comment.
I’d laugh if this wasn’t affecting me directly.
I can laugh either for or at you, if you want.
I’ll pour one out for the frontliners.
I’m actually curious to know, how is Linux inherently more secure than windows?
Sort of an aside, but I am seeing Microsoft more as a hostile entity that I need to protect myself from.
In general it is. Opensource software has less bugs that proprietary. And even those bugs can be mitigated with hardening.
Few things, in rough order:
-
Smaller = less attack surface. You can strip a Linux OS down to only what is needed.
-
Open source, so it’s can be peered review. There are Unix distros like OpenBSD, that share lot of user space component options, where auditing is a big thing. The whole sunlight and oxygen stops things festering as much. As abosed to things locked in a box in another box down in a cellar.
-
Open source transparency forces corporates to be better. We can see what they are and aren’t doing.
-
Diversity. The is no “Linux”, it’s a ecosystem of Linux distros all built and configured differently, using different components. Think of Linux as just a type of base board in a sea of Unix Lego bits. There are plenty of big deployments on BSD bases that share a lot with some Linux deployments.
-
Unix security is simplier than Windows security, so easer to not mess up.
-
If you follow the philosophy that it follows, that is, giving the least possible permission to any application, to make it work, it easily becomes much more secure than Windows.
On the other hand, if you log into your GUI desktop as root, Bill Gates save you.
In addition to what others have said, there’s the move towards containerized applications on Linux via flatpaks, immutable distributions, and snapshots/rollbacks. There are also distributions like Debian with a delayed package release schedule for added stability and security. Its my understanding that you could have an exceptionally secure, effectively trustless, Linux system beyond what is possible on Mac or Windows.
It’s not, in fact out of the box Linux is SIGNIFICANTLY more insecure than windows.
The thing is, hackers and hack tool makers target the largest market segment to gain the most conversions.
Apple users used to gush about how virus proof they were until they hit decent market share, and then they got plenty of malware.
Same thing with Linux but the real difference is you need a few decades of linux experience to fix anything in a timely manner.
Linux is SIGNIFICANTLY more insecure than windows.
Absolutely not true. I assume you don’t have a source for this? Besides your butt…?
UPDATE:: They did not have a source.
Does Linux come out of the box with A/V and firewalls?
On second thought, you’re dismissive little aside just convinced me to excise you from my internet experience for all eternity.
Ta…
Also: don’t trust your employees to boot into safe mode.
Trust a 3rd party to freely install system level files at any time.I knew how to fix the computers at work today in the morning, but we couldn’t get through to the help desk to get the bit locker codes for each computer until near the end of the day.
Also: don’t trust your employees to boot into safe mode. Trust a 3rd party to freely install system level files at any time.
Exactly. This is exactly the problem, and unless people wisen up the software security problem is only going to get worse. Companies and Governments need to rethink how they approach security entirely. This is a preview of what is to come, its only going to get worse and more damaging from here, and none of the vendors care.
Companies and Governments need to rethink how they approach security entirely. This is a preview of what is to come, its only going to get worse and more damaging from here, and none of the vendors care.
It is easy one for goverments. Ban security through obscurity. As well proprietary security software.
Moonbutt’s moonbuck))) Have I seen you somewhere?
Ban security through obscurity. As well proprietary security software.
The government likes proprietary software. They are never going to ban it.
the good news is that it does make windows more secure. you cant hack something that has crashed.
Remember guys, it took about a decade for Solar Winds to discover somebody had root access to everybody that used their software, another decade for somebody outside Solar Winds to discover it and tell everybody, and half a decade with nobody claiming to have solved the issue up to now.
So when you believe that your computer with an EDS is safe just because you can’t use it, think again.
The most secure computer is the one not running any software. That’s why I recommend Crowdstrike.
Reminds me of a local cyber security firm, which declares war on a group of hackers. The CEO went on television to “double dog dare” the hackers to hack their servers and claim their firewalls are impenetrable.
Well you can guess the results, within 48 hours, their servers went down one after another. And when shit about to hit the fan, they literally turned off all of their servers for days. They hired a 3rd party IT firm to patch their security, then the CEO declared victory in a local newspaper.
Similar thing happened to the idiot CEO of Lifelock that used to advertise his actual social security number everywhere.
I used to work at Equifax. LifeLock was the subject of many corporate trainings.
I’m pretty sure Windows is plenty secure. It isn’t private or usercentric but of on a security perspective it isn’t bad.
Linux has plenty of security problems just like any OS
Defending Windows in a linux memes community.
That’s a bold move cotton, let’s see how that works out for 'em
