I recently came upon an article that brought a smile to my face. I paused to enjoy this infrequent experience because not much technology these days does that.
Linux was portrayed in the ZDNet article by Jack Wallen as a safe haven from the security traps that rival desktop operating systems have This has been my belief for some time now.The article’s author’s attempt to sell the product to a mostly non-Linux consumer tech readership impressed me, though.
Concerning arguments in favor of Linux desktop, the writer’s were simple enough for beginners to understand. lovely. If there was one flaw in the article, though, it was that at times it was a little too vague for a guide that, at best, is pointing readers toward the serious task of erasing their machine’s stock operating system in order to install a new one that can be downloaded for free from the internet.
For those who require some guidance regarding the excitement sparked by the first article, I hope a follow-up piece is in the works. However, I wanted to offer some points to start a conversation, unless and until the sequel is released.
It’s Good to Know the Risks. It’s Even Better When They’re All Layout.
Given how frequently attackers target Windows, the author begins by outlining the risks associated with using it. Permit me to provide some statistics to emphasize that point.
Within seconds, a web search reveals that Windows is the most frequently infected operating system with malware in general, as well as the most popular target for ransomware.
Upon reflection, it makes sense that Windows is a hacker’s favorite platform. Windows dominates enterprise workstations by a significant margin. The main driving force behind today’s attackers is money. In an employee’s Windows desktop or on a random personal computer, where do you think more valuable data would be found?
My favorite verbal punching bag is Windows as well. I demand to evaluate Linux based on the evidence because I think it’s important to fight fair, just as I did for Windows.
Statistics on desktop security for Linux are scarce. This is not surprising in an ecosystem with hundreds of distributions. We must therefore carefully examine the data in order to evaluate Linux’s security.
When it comes to “Linux” as a whole, there is enough malware available for it to trail Windows, albeit just slightly.
However, without context, the story is not fully revealed. Even though Android is classified as a different OS, as the dataset above does, Linux is still used more extensively than any other OS. The vulnerability profile for each kind of Linux deployment varies greatly.
Think about IoT vulnerabilities
It appears likely to me that a large portion of Linux malware fits into this category given the abundance of industry experts’ conference talks, white papers, and vulnerability disclosures that highlight the particular security flaws of Internet of Things (IoT) devices.
Since users of IoT devices are not required to log in, no active user is observing the kind of suspicious behavior that indicates the presence of malware. Yes, but users hardly ever alter the default password once they find it. Additionally, updates for IoT devices are rare, if they come at all, and when they do, the device may need to have its firmware flashed.
It’s exactly the same as when was the last time you flashed your router firmware. Furthermore, these devices are constantly connected to the network and turned on, which may be reason enough to target IoT Linux. Is there anything more suitable for incorporating into a botnet or redirecting traffic to and from hacker command and control servers?
Linux servers are the main targets, not desktop computers
Moreover, I surmise that a large number of Linux attacks target servers running Linux. There are just significantly more Linux servers than Linux desktops, even if we assume that server, IoT, and desktop Linux devices are all targeted at the same rates (percentageof machines attacked out of all potential targets of that type).
These days, a lot of Linux servers are housed in the cloud, which means they frequently get a lot of automated management to strengthen their security, e.g. g. auto-updates, they continue to attract criticism due to their attractiveness as targets. A greater range of software is also possible to run on Linux servers.
Because Linux servers have more unique programs installed than desktops, there is a greater likelihood that a hackable server exists somewhere, even if we assume that all software types are equally vulnerable. Web servers, DNS servers, VPN servers, file servers, and numerous other types of servers are available with various software vendors. That gives attackers a lot of space to maneuver.
Taking all of these factors into account, desktop Linux continues to be the least desirable target for a hacker trying to make quick money (or move toward making money). The least number of people use desktop Linux. In actuality, it has the fewest users across all desktop, mobile, and Linux installation types.
Like everyone else, attackers value their time. As a result, they frequently create exploits that aim to target as many possible victims as possible. It is unlikely that desktop Linux will ever be anywhere close to that, which is a good thing in terms of security, barring a major upheaval in the desktop computing scene.
Let’s Take This Penguin for a Zoo
A few of the ZDNet article’s commendations for Linux security deserve closer examination. For the record, I believe that the majority of it is reasonable, but it’s wise to verify the validity of each assertion.
According to that article, Linux permissions are “sane.”. I’m not sure if I agree that this is true because I’m not sure what the author means by sane.In that case, I would agree that root is more isolated from regular users than Administrator is in Windows.
Right-clicking an application and choosing Run as Administrator is a dangerously simple feature in Windows. Raising the execution privilege level on Linux and macOS is more complicated and requires more consideration. Rather, you must open a terminal and use sudo to run the application.
However, this only really indicates that permissions in the Unix style are reasonable. That appears to be the case, but to be fair, macOS also has these permissions. Right now, determining sanity mostly depends on how default file and directory permissions are configured on Linux and macOS desktop computers. However, there are so many differences amongst Linux distributions that making comparisons becomes difficult.
Additionally, our penguin-loving friend praises Linux for using repos instead of Windows, which permits software installation from any directory. “exe” file. It is true that the majority of desktop Linux distributions direct you to their repository. To be honest though, compared to Linux, macOS has far more restricted software.
Although the majority of software on Linux is downloaded as AppImages or . debs from third parties, the operating system actually falls somewhere in between macOS and Windows.
MacOS has the ability to restrict its ecosystem, though. With its exclusive control over macOS, Apple is in a position to limit its software without restraint. Since Linux is an open-source operating system, it is not feasible to create a walled garden for it, akin to Apple’s App Store. Users could move to another distribution and continue installing any software they wanted if one closed its doors.
Now that we’ve both mentioned it, Linux is unquestionably open-source. I concur that the fact that this allows for independent expert analysis strengthens the case for Linux’s security. However, this does not imply that they do just because they can.
Be aware that the majority of security experts evaluate server Linux as “Linux” before you start burning a Linux ISO onto your USB. Fewer of them hunt for vulnerabilities in Linux desktops and applications.
An Equitable Perspective on Operating System Updates
I want to address a statement made by Jack Wallen in my final analysis of his excellent ZDNet article. They claimed that desktop Linux is updated “regularly,” which is accurate and might have been said to reassure potential customers who were apprehensive. It should be noted, though, that in the modern world, Windows and macOS share the same regularity of updates.
Because Linux desktops are not a single entity, they receive updates on a regular basis, every week, or whenever. You need to know your preferences and do your homework (newcomers: even though I adore Arch Linux, I strongly advise against choosing it).
However, I understand where my colleague is coming from, so I’ll take a different approach to support his claim. Linux promises perpetual security if users are prepared to reinstall it every few years. It is still typical for people to use their computers or phones after the security update has expired, even among users who are concerned about information security.
I understand that the OS developers for your device are no longer motivated to push updates, so I don’t want to spend hundreds of dollars. With Linux, you can receive four to five more years of support by simply installing the most recent major release. Repeat until that runs out.
Take Care of a Penguin Now
Owing a computer is a significant responsibility, much like owning a pet. The enthusiasm that the author of the original piece so skillfully arouses in any potential Linux user should be shared by all. You have everything you need to give a penguin a happy home on your desktop, as long as it’s combined with a sober appreciation for what using Linux actually entails.