• Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Not OP but - Windows is being bombarded by malware every second of every day. Linux, with its 6% of desktop user market share - not so much. This kinda’ guarantees Windows has a pretty good resilience (these days).

      On top of that - in Linux you can change/break anything, which means bad actors could have you run malware by posting “helpful” comments on help threads. You know, “just run this .sh with sudo”.

      Then you have situations like Arch has been going through - DDOS attacks on official repos and malware injected into a couple of packages in AUR. Sure, it got caught - but how many users installed the malware? How many other packages are under less scrutiny and are still serving malware in AUR?

      And, I’m certain, someone out there is reading this and preparing to write a hot take on how “AUR is what it is, you’re not supposed to blindly install stuff from it” - but that’s exactly the problem. Because 99% of users have no clue what they’re doing.

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        22 hours ago

        Windows is being bombarded by malware every second of every day. Linux, with its 6% of desktop user market share - not so much.

        Linux dominates the server space. Basically any company with access to lots of capital or trade secrets is running Linux servers. It is a massive, massive opportunity for hackers to hit jackpots. Linux gets bombarded by attackers constantly and holds steadfast. I’m not sure where you get this idea that this isn’t the case…

        Edit: Just to really drive this point home, 65% of Microsoft Azure servers are Linux. Let that sink in, the majority of even Microsoft’s cloud servers are Linux. That is the one company you would think would be pushing Windows, yet here they are talking about their high quality Linux offerings!

        “With over 65% of Azure workloads running Linux, our commitment to delivering high-quality Linux VM images and platforms remains unwavering.” - Microsoft

        • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          21 hours ago

          Linux dominates the server space

          But the discussion is about user-space. Not everything from server-Linux translates 1:1 into desktop-Linux.

          For example, there are no anti social engineering security measures in Linux. Just sudo and break anything and everything. Whereas on Windows, if you try doing something stupid, most probably Windows won’t let you, or will at least make you jump through some hoops.

          • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            21 hours ago

            There are no anti social engineering security measurements in Linux, for instance. Just sodo and break anything and everything.

            Windows gives you a UAC prompt or needs one to run a cmd prompt as admin, both of which are functionally the same as sudo…

            Windows is being bombarded by malware every second of every day. Linux, with its 6% of desktop user market share - not so much.

            But, to circle back to the core statement. Yes it is. And Linux holds steadfast.

            • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              20 hours ago

              They’re very much not, that’s the point. There are things that require the NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM account permissions. Admin can do a lot in Windows, but not everything.

              EDIT: also, Windows throws the UAC prompt around much less than Linux asks for the root permissions. ANY software update on Linux needs root. Even regular users are starting to get that if they see the UAC prompt, something big is about to happen.

              • toothpaste_sandwich@thebrainbin.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                17 hours ago

                You do have a point—Linux does not warn users against running superuser commands constantly and naggingly. Also not the beginner-friendly distros like Zorin, Mint and Ubuntu (as far as I know).

                To me that’s fine, because I know not to just run any command, but my grandma who gets an email from a trustworthy-sounding person telling them to run “sudo install this keyboard logger and Rustdesk scripted installer” will not know better.

                So then that begs the question, given you seem to know something about it: how should this be addressed? (I assume you know something about this—I don’t even know what an UAC prompt is.)


                On the other hand: How does Windows stop users from running the .exe file a trustworthy-sounding person emailed them? You could argue that’s easier to ask people to do than to open the terminal and write a command in there.

                • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  17 hours ago

                  I don’t even know what an UAC prompt is

                  That’s basically the equivalent of the root credentials prompt in Linux.

                  So then that begs the question, given you seem to know something about it: how should this be addressed?

                  I’m not sure it can be addressed. It would require completely redefining how permissions work in Linux, I think.

                  The way Windows handles it is that if updates are coming in through “secure” channels (official OS updates, Store application updates, updates to applications that do not touch any protected areas), administrator permissions are just never required. For example, a browser update just happens in the background. You open your browser, use it, you close it for the day, you open it the next day, and it’s the new version already.

                  I don’t think this could ever work in Linux due to the fundamental difference in how software is installed. In Windows, applications have their own folders, in Linux everything is dropped, based on type, to just a couple of “centralised” folders, right? So, every app must have access to those folders, which prevents this kind of “if you don’t touch this, you won’t need admin” approach.

                  Maybe things like Flatpacks could solve it, since the apps (to my understanding) are more self-contained, a bit like UWP apps in Windows.

                  On the other hand: How does Windows stop users from running the .exe file a trustworthy-sounding person emailed them?

                  The UAC prompt has a very specific design and will warn you with an orange colour band if the application is not signed with appropriate certificates. If it’s a suspected dangerous application, the band will be red.

                  You could argue that’s easier to ask people to do than to open the terminal and write a command in there.

                  You can send them an .sh file for the exact same effect. Bah, you can send them a .pdf file that’s actually an executable script in Linux.

                  • toothpaste_sandwich@thebrainbin.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 hours ago

                    The way Windows handles it is that if updates are coming in through “secure” channels (official OS updates, Store application updates, updates to applications that do not touch any protected areas), administrator permissions are just never required.

                    As far as I know, that works the same in Linux. Updates come in through the official repository, and you can easily set it up so that no password prompt is needed to have the update install. I imagine many user-friendly distributions do that. Of course, you will need to really get it into the head of new users that they only install things through the package manager and never through the command line.

                    The UAC prompt has a very specific design and will warn you with an orange colour band if the application is not signed with appropriate certificates. If it’s a suspected dangerous application, the band will be red.

                    Well, that sounds like something that shouldn’t be too hard to set up on Linux. Something like “you’re installing something that’s not from our official repo… You sure bro?”

                    in Linux everything is dropped, based on type, to just a couple of “centralised” folders, right?

                    I’m not so sure if that is true, actually! Sandboxed applications are very much a thing in Linux, and immutable distributions are an extra protection against unwanted tampering.

                    (I’m not sure if sandboxed is the term here, I’ll be honest. But you know the concept I mean.)

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Windows Defender monitors the entire system continuously

      Windows is bad for privacy but security is a different matter.