Secure Linux- Distros and Software

[MurphCID]

RickNS, I think you misunderstood the point of the thread. It is not about backups, it is about "secure" Linux and supposedly "secure" distributions. I could not agree more that backups are critical, and I, for one, am utterly guilty about not backing up as often as I should. But what makes a "secure" Linux distributionn, or is it all smoke and mirrors? A lot of good comments here, but just for example what makes Qubes or Pure OS more secure than Mint for example? And if there is some "special sauce" they use, could it be applied to Mint, again for example?

[MurphCID]

The point is if you do have good backup, you have nothing to worry about.

I disagree. What about identity theft leading to credit card fraud? A backup won't protect you from that.

How funny, yesterday, my CC company called and told me that both mine and my wife's card had been used to attempt to purchase cell phones in Saudi Arabia. Cancelled the cards, and new ones are on the way.

[Hoser Rob]

... what makes Qubes or Pure OS more secure than Mint for example? And if there is some "special sauce" they use, could it be applied to Mint, again for example?

I don't think there's anything in any of them that you couldn't do with Ubuntu or Mint. All the kernels and GNU/Linux wrapper programs come the same places. That's not just true with security either. Ubuntu Studio has never had anything you couldn't have applied to 'regular' Ubuntu.

All they really do is make it hopefully more convenient, though not always. Kali Linux had a fad a few years ago for people who I think largely had to do with some people having fantasies about being a hacker. But Kali just packaged the pentesting tools. You still had to know how to use them.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

...

Minimize the Risk of the Human Element!

We heard you the first time. No need to repeat yourself.

Actually, that is a point that bears repeating since so many people miss it the first time or two. However, if they miss after three times, it's a lost cause.

[gomerpile]

... what makes Qubes or Pure OS more secure than Mint for example? And if there is some "special sauce" they use, could it be applied to Mint, again for example?

I don't think there's anything in any of them that you couldn't do with Ubuntu or Mint. All the kernels and GNU/Linux wrapper programs come the same places. That's not just true with security either. Ubuntu Studio has never had anything you couldn't have applied to 'regular' Ubuntu.

All they really do is make it hopefully more convenient, though not always. Kali Linux had a fad a few years ago for people who I think largely had to do with some people having fantasies about being a hacker. But Kali just packaged the pentesting tools. You still had to know how to use them.

Its all about backdoors and mint is filled with them

[Moem]

Its all about backdoors and mint is filled with them

As Carl Sagan said:

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Let's hear it.

[AZgl1800]

Its all about backdoors and mint is filled with them

that is just BS, no proof at all

[MurphCID]

Its all about backdoors and mint is filled with them

As Carl Sagan said:

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Let's hear it.

I agree, I have never heard of such.

[MurphCID]

... what makes Qubes or Pure OS more secure than Mint for example? And if there is some "special sauce" they use, could it be applied to Mint, again for example?

I don't think there's anything in any of them that you couldn't do with Ubuntu or Mint. All the kernels and GNU/Linux wrapper programs come the same places. That's not just true with security either. Ubuntu Studio has never had anything you couldn't have applied to 'regular' Ubuntu.

All they really do is make it hopefully more convenient, though not always. Kali Linux had a fad a few years ago for people who I think largely had to do with some people having fantasies about being a hacker. But Kali just packaged the pentesting tools. You still had to know how to use them.

Very good point.

[argentwolf]

Linux and open source projects are simply the smart choice for security when considering Desktop OS alternatives (i.e, Windows or MacOS), the popular OS's have publicly shown to have an ability to easily perform client side scanning (e.g., malware scanning), thus containing "spy in the device" modules (or MITM) that easily brakes end-to-end encryption. If your OS can inspect files, there is NO encryption or privacy. #TNO
Now, we need to find out who's trustworthy and auditing open source code?

"Be a Subversive with Linux! We are under Attack!"
https://odysee.com/@RobBraxmanTech:6/li ... R9R8Km6Liq

[MurphCID]

Or do we have vulnerabilities or is it just that Microsoft and Apple have a larger attack profile due to installed user base?

[AZgl1800]

Or do we have vulnerabilities or is it just that Microsoft and Apple have a larger attack profile due to installed user base?

I suspect this is the case.

the extremely small global use of Linux, just does not give the Hackers enough incentive to go after us.

although, I just read an article on this topic earlier this week, that the hackers are now looking into Linux using a Buffer overflow in one of the common libraries. they manage to gain Root access

[argentwolf]

We simply enjoy Security Through Minority (STM), and I'm good with that!

[gomerpile]

Linux is used to power 96.3% of the world's top web servers. This is the university of google search says. They all been broken into. The good thing with Linux is we have the options to close back doors.

[rickNS]

RickNS, I think you misunderstood the point of the thread.

I do not think so. I get it...and Linux itself is plenty secure, or we would be hearing a LOT more about it. The "weakest link" in the chain is the "user".
As I mentioned up a post or two, no matter the OS or ANY security system, "Nobody or nothing can protect one, from oneself". And that is precisely why Linux makes no claim, such as "Linux is impervious" which it pretty much is, but they can not guarantee against idiots.

Linux is secure, no problem there. And no need to question it, Instead find just one example of someone who has got infected / compromised, then you will have an argument. Till then do not worry...life too short.

[The Muffin Man]

Or do we have vulnerabilities or is it just that Microsoft and Apple have a larger attack profile due to installed user base?

It's not your mother's Linux.
https://truelist.co/blog/linux-statistics/

[Moem]

It is exactly my mother's Linux.

[argentwolf]

It's not your mother's Linux.
https://truelist.co/blog/linux-statistics/

If you look around the field and can't determine who's last at desktop OS's, it's you. D'oh!
I'm fine with that...

[argentwolf]

the popular OS's have publicly shown to have an ability to easily perform client side scanning (e.g., malware scanning), thus containing "spy in the device" modules (or MITM) that easily brakes end-to-end encryption. If your OS can inspect files, there is NO encryption or privacy. #TNO

Below is another article that speaks to what I was describing above.
I'd also suggest there's a good/bad reason there's NOT many anti-malware/security suite software's available for Linux, maybe they can't easily hook it in the kernel.

"The Crucial Difference Between Pre- and Post-Delivery Email Scanning"
https://securityboulevard.com/2023/10/t ... -scanning/

[The Muffin Man]

It's not your mother's Linux.
https://truelist.co/blog/linux-statistics/

If you look around the field and can't determine who's last at desktop OS's, it's you. D'oh!
I'm fine with that...

I wonder if the 1 percenters are running OpenIndiana, Minix, or BSD?