Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]

fosdem.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 190 posts

Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]

#21

Post by deckiedan »

vocworker wrote: post #15
AsyncAwait wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing with the Linux Desktop is that you can selectively enable SELinux, use PaX etc. and have security comparable to, if not better, than Windows 10, plus the fact that Linux is a much more varied attack surface still applies. Or you can do nothing, in which case you're probably less secure.

Sure, extremely motivated individuals or governments might do that. But I'd still rate a distribution by it's default security settings. Being secure by default is important if you are shipping to thousands of users.

Fedora comes with SELinux enabled by default, and is working towards more interesting sandboxing stuff for the future too.

Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]

#22

Post by AsyncAwait »

thatcat wrote: post #14
AsyncAwait wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing with the Linux Desktop is that you can selectively enable SELinux, use PaX etc. and have security comparable to, if not better, than Windows 10, plus the fact that Linux is a much more varied attack surface still applies. Or you can do nothing, in which case you're probably less secure.

Where's a good place to get a general guide on every day desktop use of SELinux, PaX, etc?

I'd look into Fedora and Arch Linux documentation/wiki.

Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]

#24

Post by dogma1138 »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #12
xpaulbettsx wrote: post #6

I mean, the answer is unequivocally, without the slightest doubt, yes. The Linux Desktop is probably a good 5-10yrs behind Windows 10 in terms of defense-in-depth mitigations as well as exploits in common targets like file parsers etc etc. https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Weston-W... is a good reference for all the stuff that Desktop Linux in 2017 is for the most part, missing

The thing with the Linux Desktop is that you can selectively enable SELinux, use PaX etc. and have security comparable to, if not better, than Windows 10, plus the fact that Linux is a much more varied attack surface still applies. Or you can do nothing, in which case you're probably less secure.

Windows still has better protection of credentials, it can be better protected against DMA attacks and has quite a few other tricks under its belt.

Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]

#25

Post by blorgle »

I am a big fan of grsec, RBAC and sandboxing stuff. But let's be real here people! Those are good features on servers where there isn't a giant security black-hole called X, where any local exploit of the app can turn it into a compromise of the entire GUI system.

Look at the hoops that adversary resistance focused distros like SubgraphOS have to jump through just to mitigate the giant attack surface that X opens.

Until Wayland becomes the usable default standard, "Linux Desktop Security" is an anachronism.

Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]

#26

Post by r3bl »

Ironically, I didn't pay attention to the "[pdf]" part of the title, and as soon as I clicked the link, the PDF file got downloaded.

I have a pretty strict AppArmor profile for Evince (AKA Document Viewer on GNOME-based DEs), so I thought that automatically downloading PDFs and opening them in Evince instead of in the web browser would be safer. I didn't even thought about this kind of attack surface.

Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]

#27

Post by serf »

ch0wn wrote: post #20
jmnicolas wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm not rational but I'm much more worried about Microsoft having access to my data than some random "Russian" hacker.

Yes, that does not exactly strike me as a rational stance to take. Are you actually more worried about Microsoft blackmailing you about those photos from 4 years ago?

No, but i'd be worried about a government with power to control Microsoft using such information in a negative way.

Basically this scenario comes to mind :

a) A power change occurs within a government. This power change facilitates the changing of laws.

b) A corporation with massive stores of information about individuals is within this government.

c) New government doesn't like X people because they aren't Y people. New government coerces corporation within legal boundaries to fess up data on X people.

d) New government does horrible things using list provided by and facilitated by corporation, through no direct fault of that corporation other than the happenstance of existing within a country with ever-changing laws and regulation.

Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]

#28

Post by general_ai »

There's security and there's safety. Linux desktop may well be less secure, meaning that it could be successfully attacked by an experienced attacker. At the same time it's far less likely to be attacked, so it's safer, for the same reason as macOS: less marketshare, few people are motivated to learn/research attack vectors.

Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]

#29

Post by mirimir »

ch0wn wrote: post #20
jmnicolas wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm not rational but I'm much more worried about Microsoft having access to my data than some random "Russian" hacker.

Yes, that does not exactly strike me as a rational stance to take. Are you actually more worried about Microsoft blackmailing you about those photos from 4 years ago?

Well, I'm worried about Microsoft knowing who I am. It's hard to get legitimate Windows installs that aren't linked to non-anonymous payment methods. Not impossible, but hard.

Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]

#30

Post by simonh »

serf wrote: post #27
ch0wn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that does not exactly strike me as a rational stance to take. Are you actually more worried about Microsoft blackmailing you about those photos from 4 years ago?

No, but i'd be worried about a government with power to control Microsoft using such information in a negative way. Basically this scenario comes to mind : a) A power change occurs within a government. This power change facilitates the changing of laws. b) A corporation with massive stores of information about individuals is within this government. c) New government doesn't like X people because they aren't Y people.…

But surely almost all of the above, while theoretically a possible future issue in the USA, is day-to-day reality in Russia and China already.
Post reply on HN