Slashdot Mirror
Linux Is Not As Safe As You Think (betanews.com)
BrianFagioli writes via BetaNews: Would you be surprised if I told you that threat methods for Linux increased an astonishing 300 percent in 2016, while Microsoft's operating systems saw a decrease? Well, according to a new report, that is true. Does this mean Linux is unsafe? No way, Jose! There are some important takeaways here. Microsoft's Windows operating systems are still the most targeted platforms despite the year over year decline -- far beyond Linux. Also, just because there is an increase in malware attack methods doesn't necessarily mean that more systems will be infected. Let us not forget that it is easier to find a vulnerability with open source too; Microsoft largely uses closed source code. "At the end of November, criminals with other variants of the same Linux malware unleashed devastating attacks against DSL routers of Telekom customers. 900,000 devices were taken down. In October, the Mirai code appeared freely available on the Internet. Since then, the AV-TEST systems have been investigating an increasing number of samples with spikes at the end of October, November and beginning of December," says AV Test of the Mirai malware. "Other Linux malware, such as the Tsunami backdoor, has been causing trouble for several years now and can be easily modified for attacks against IoT devices. The detection systems of AV-TEST first detected the Tsunami malicious code in the year 2003. Although, at that time, practically no IoT devices existed, the Linux backdoor already offered attack functions which even today would be suitable for virtually unprotected attacks on routers: In this manner, Tsunami can download additional malicious code onto infected devices and thus make devices remote controllable for criminals. But the old malware can also be used for DDoS attacks. The Darlloz worm, known since 2013, as well as many other Linux and Unix malware programs, have similar attack patterns which AV-TEST has been detecting and analyzing for years."
What is the percentage of security problems that systemd bugs (or are those 'features'?) are responsible for?
You can't handle the truth.
Linux, unlike Windows and Apple's iOS, *can* be made much more secure with a little bit of effort.
How? By not using monolithic kernels that support every device in creation, and stripping the kernel down to what is installed on the system -- especially with things like IOT devices. If it isn't installed, it doesn't need patched, it can't break, and it can't be exploited.
Ditto for added software and apps. Take a look at many of the Linux-based router firmwares out there, both sold by commercial vendors and FOSS projects, and you'll see attempts to compete with high-end Cisco feature sets for home or small business use.
Having that available is great! However, turning all of that on by default, and user thinking they should get something not because it suits their needs but because it supports 10,000 features, gets you a complex, insecure mess.
With Microsoft and Apple you can't remove many of those features. The company controls it and, Enterprise customer with a decade experience or not, you will damn well have Telemetry and like it! And dozens of other "features" that you'll never use, don't want, and just are waiting to get exploited.
Linux gives you the ability to shape much of your own system, including making it much more secure than a run-of-the-mill device. Whether or not you take the time and effort to do that is up to you.
I've seen way to many Linux-based routers and gadgets that are exposed to a network and still have default admin passwords to blame "Linux" for security headaches.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Almost all the major infections, back-doors and security problems are the result of the userland, improper implementation of the kernel, bad firmwares, lack of security knowledge, improper development, sloppy implementation and etc... etc... etc..
To say Linux is more insecure then Windows, means that the kernel, as released by Linus, and nothing else, is insecure. Well some security issues are discovered residing in the kernel, almost all other attacks and vectors have nothing to do with the base release kernel.
Linux has been attacked for years, there have been rootkits and exploits out there since the early days of slackware... Linux has had a significant presence on servers almost since its inception, and is now starting to make inroads in many other markets.
On the other hand, what people think of as "linux" in this context is a multitude of different versions of the linux kernel with various modifications and all manner of different userlands running on top. Literally anyone can build a linux-based system and pile whatever garbage software they like on top of an ancient version of the kernel.
Windows on the other hand comes from one place, in a small set of versions, and all of the vulnerabilities attributed to windows are present in this version and usually in a default configuration.
Microsoft fully control the versions of windows being released, and if a third party produces a device that bundles a windows install but has some additional vulnerable software running on top of it or a stupid default configuration (eg default passwords) that vulnerability is blamed on the device vendor and not on windows.
There are no shortage of such devices, and they routinely get compromised not only due to their own poor configuration but also because of vulnerabilities in windows itself (eg eternalblue).
When it comes to embedded devices, Linux is massively more widespread than windows, most people are likely to have more linux devices than windows and usually don't even realise it, only a subset of these devices are getting compromised because the manufacturers of those devices make stupid mistakes when building them and then fail to either provide updates, or provide a user-friendly way to apply them.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
It's not that XP is a good product, it's that it was followed by Vista, and having learned from that fiasco, people avoided Windows 7 until it was proven that it wasn't simply another Vista.
Unfortunately, just as people were starting to plan the switch to Windows 7, Microsoft started promising that Windows 9 would be much better, and people decided to wait.
Then when people saw that Windows 10 was another fiasco, and started considering Windows 7 once more, Microsoft started forcing Windows 10 upon Windows 7 users, and decided that XP was the safer choice.
Is Windows XP really less secure than any of it's successors, if you consider all the people who came home to find Windows 10 installed without their consent as malware attacks, along with all the spyware in Windows 10?