Linux

13568 readers

314 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

-42

Linux is actually very vulnerable to exploits and it's showing with high value vulnerabilities that has been dropping in the latest years; FreeBSD is way better in security record (piefed.world)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by beep@piefed.world to c/linux@programming.dev

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/uncommon/p/1089778/linux-is-actually-very-vulnerable-to-exploits-and-it-s-showing-with-high-value-vulnerabi

I hate when people keep repeating the myth that Linux is more secure than X OS without any understanding of how much Linux gets exploited.

On the other hand, FreeBSD rarely suffers from wide security issues.

Overall, I don't think anyone should repeat the myth that Linux is secure.

And at least if they gonna recommend Linux, they better recommend a good distro with SeLinux, hardened kernel and hardened OS.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Neptr@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago

I agree with most of your points. But the *BSDs are not somehow more secure as a desktop OS. The suffer the same fundamental flaw which are present on Linux: no sane/coherent threat model. Desktop apps run unsandboxed without any MAC policies. The *BSDs also lack many of the useful security features available on Linux (not that most Linux distros do anything with that stuff either, except AOSP and ChromeOS). Just cus a kernel is more "secure" does mean anything when the stuff implemented in userspace doesn't make use of any of those features.

SELinux is very powerful, same with Seccomp and Landlock. But do any distros make extensive use of that and actually also sandbox applications.

FreeBSD has capsicum (and also an implementation of FLASK?, which is what SELinux is for Linux). OpenBSD has pledge. But are apps required to run in a isolated environment? Many of the *BSDs (and certainly .most of their users) still use X11 instead of modern alternatives like Wayland. The are still monolithic kernels which dont implement drivers in userspace, network, etc in userspace. Not secure at all.

MacOS is more secure, I agree. But it isn't trying nearly hard enough IMO.