1953
Well that didn't go as expected...
(programming.dev)
For those who are wondering, yes, Wine is malware compatible so be careful about the EXEs you run!
You really don't think Linux has viruses? I'm confused by this post. Is it an excuse to shit on wine and windows?
They're super rare. I've not gotten one once in decades, whereas I've encountered countless viruses on Windows. Linux is more secure, but also it's just a smaller target. Best way to avoid viruses is to use an OS nobody else wants to use *taps head
I think you have a false sense of security with regards to Linux vulnerabilities and exploitations. There are dozen of known exploits throughout the Linux ecosystem that are publicly disclosed frequently.
What makes you think Linux is more secure than windows? I'm not trying to start an argument here I'm just curious.
I find the Linux ecosystem has far better updating mechanisms than Windows and it doesn't have as much backwards compatibility cruft as Windows. That and the open source nature I think is better at having exploits uncovered. I'm not saying Linux is perfectly secure, but that it's more secure than Windows. But I think the biggest reason it's less likely to get viruses is just that it's a smaller target and that hackers aren't spending as much time trying to attack it, plus the users are more tech savvy meaning any attacks will be less lucrative.
It's the most popular server system, so I'm not so sure about that.
The target user base is much smaller. Most viruses are spread through user error and server administrators are far more competent than a typical OS user. Also, typical server exploits lead to exposing credentials rather than spreading viruses.
Software is usually installed from repositories and not random websites, so there is less room for user error in general. Even if you download an executable file, you will most likely have to give it permissions to run first. So I think it's more immune to viruses not because of its users, but because of the way it's designed.
Open source can be a double edged sword for that but I dig it.
I think dependencies in Linux packages does cause a lot of issues but that's mostly on air gaped networks, and even still manageable.
Sizing the target depends on what threat actors are involved though so those broad stroke statements don't hold up well in reality, from my Experience.
Not sure what their answer is but not delaying security fixes until some fixed monthly date would be my answer.
And a single place to download and install all those security fixes with one command.
To be fair, critical security patches for Windows are often delivered out of band (not on patch Tuesday). And malware definitions for Defender are daily.
Not trying to defend Microsoft entirely, but not everything is delayed until their monthly update schedule.
To be fair if it's scored high enough there are usually workarounds posted and supported to hold you over for patch Tuesday.
I've done patch management on both platforms and find the predictability easier to manage. But that's not home use so grain of salt stuff.
GNU/Linux is Libre Software, so that already makes it more secure, because anyone can actually verify what it does and modify it if needed. This means that users are really in control of what the operating system does. It's difficult to verify what Windows does, but we know that it contains spyware, which isn't easy to remove.
Installing software from a repository is also safer than downloading it from random websites.
When some library like OpenSSL has a vulnerability, you will get a new version with system updates and all programs will start using that patched version. On Windows usually each program has to have its own update mechanism or it will be stuck with old libraries.
There's a difference between exploits and malicious software (even though malicious software often makes use of exploits, it is different). I am willing to bet there is way way more malicious software written for Windows than Linux, simply because there's way more Windows users than Linux users and there's way more Windows software than Linux software.
Yeah that's true. But I say false sense of security because that's what happened to Apple back in the day and they got caught with their pants down lol
To be fair, I haven't gotten a windows virus in at least 25 years either...
Getting a virus takes real effort. I feel like the whole virus debate is just 2000s hangover, and people never update their shit talking points.
What is actually a threat are scams. Seniors being called, lied to and forced to compromise themselves. Those are the real viruses of 2023. And obviously 99% of seniors are on Windows.
yeah when you use your brain you don't get viruses it better than any anti virus software
So the most secure possible option is TempleOS? Suck it, Apple!
OS/2 !!!
Unix for Lyfe
You had the perfect opportunity to mention you use arch and wasted it!
As an arch user myself, I almost tripped over myself running to leave this comment. I do use arch btw.
As a CrossFit enthusiast, I wouldn't have tripped when rushing to let others know I use Arch.
downloads blind from the aur what happened to my system (this is ment as a joke i mean no offence to anyone)
lmao
I use Kubuntu, BTW.
Getting tired of this smaller target narrative. On desktop, maybe. We don't know for sure since most Linux doesn't carry telemetry and one ISO download doesn't mean one install.
Also, Linux runs some insanely high percentage of the Internet (server, VM, container), IOT and mobile. For every individual who might own a hand full of computers there are 10's, or perhaps hundreds, of Linux servers out there doing tasks for them. Virus and malware don't only target desktops. There's literally no larger target.
I think when people say it is a smaller target for virii, they are talking about an actual virus such as ransomware, crypto miner, adware, trojans, etc. I have zero doubt these types of virii are more targeted on Windows platforms. Linux servers on the other hand are indeed going to be the largest target for exploits. The primary mechanism by which a Linux server is compromised is going to be via an exploit, not an actual virus. That's not to say they don't exist. I administer hundreds of Linux servers in several data centers. I don't believe I've ever come across an actual virus in the last decade or so, but do deal with exploit and brute force attempts nonstop. Perhaps this is a matter of semantics. I don't consider the tools and methods used to exploit systems as a virus.
Exactly. Server exploits tend to lead to leaked credentials, not viruses.
By God you're right! Installs BeOS haiku
There are very few Linux viruses. With its low market share, it's not a juicy target, or at least not desktop users.
Yeah that kinda thinking is really not useful. Linux is a very very juicy target these days due to your thinking. Desktop Linux installations are riddled with poor security settings and many server features enabled by default. IOT devices and self spun servers are regularly deployed unsecured as well.
https://linuxsecurity.com/features/must-read-articles/linux-malware-the-truth-about-this-growing-threat-updated
Yeah, even if it IS true that it's not juicy right now, doesn't that mentality run directly contradictory to the desire for linux to become more popular? We're trying to increase market share, so the "not a juicy target" idea is a very wreckless way of thinking.
I disagree. Linux is run on a large number of servers. It may be a less tempting target for Trojan style malware, but exploits and vulnerabilities for Linux are very valuable since you can gain access to large amounts of valuable data.