Is this true about Linux Kernel? Newbie asking...

[Matt1]

This is a quote from another forum i visit, where they were discussing Linux and how secure it was. Just wondering...

"The kernel was not build with security in mind. It doesn't distrust other parts in the system. The user space has no isolation. I can't see why people consider it "more secure" than Windows or macOS!"

[Pierre]

most folks wouldn't agree with that statement.


you would need , know the wider argument, though.

[jimallyn]

Somebody doesn't know what they're talking about.

[Hoser Rob]

Somebody doesn't know what they're talking about.

Or they're a troll who doesn't know what they're talking about. If anything the reverse is true.

[gittiest personITW]

This is a quote from another forum i visit, where they were discussing Linux and how secure it was. Just wondering...

"The kernel was not build with security in mind. It doesn't distrust other parts in the system. The user space has no isolation. I can't see why people consider it "more secure" than Windows or macOS!"

Maybe it is worth giving a link as a quick Google search (2 pages) only brings up your post.

[DAMIEN1307]

I found that article he was reading in a reddit forum...here it is...total rubbish...DAMIEN

You have to click the blue bar to reveal the 35 comments to find it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO ... ubuntu_ok/

This was the "salient" comment from that forum:

level 1
Prn37
2 points
·
1 day ago
Unpopular opinion here, Linux is not a good option unless you'll use it for a specific purpose.

The kernel was not build with security in mind. It doesn't distrust other parts in the system. The user space has no isolation. I can't see why people consider it "more secure" than Windows or macOS! Some people want to get rid of the big tech companies which is OK, but that doesn't make other alternatives "more secure".

The tech companies have much more resources to build better OSes than the open source community. They collect users' data. I agree. Some of them have very low standards of privacy but still running less secure OS doesn't solve the problem.

The Linux kernel shouldn't be considered as an option at all!

Almost all OSes have telemetry, which can be disabled.

The conspiracy that tech companies have backdoors in their products to spy on the users is complete nonsense without any proof at all.

They collect data as much as the users allow them to. They took advantage of the users' ignorance about data collection yet for the privacy-aware users it can be disabled.

[rambo919]

Oh great, another moron that thinks he instantly wins an argument by calling something a "conspiracy theory"...... best to just ignore him.

[ThrashZone2]

This is a quote from another forum i visit, where they were discussing Linux and how secure it was. Just wondering...

"The kernel was not build with security in mind. It doesn't distrust other parts in the system. The user space has no isolation. I can't see why people consider it "more secure" than Windows or macOS!"

Hi,
Depends
Windows standard user account you can jump through as many loops as in linux
Enter your password so much it makes it silly to have one because now it's routine reaction to a popup

Win-10 has a version that allows only installing apps from the ms store period, plus setting in all versions to do the same, seems pretty much the same to me as linux lol
So only difference is linux is mostly preferred to be used on servers maybe because it's a freebie no telling lol
Frankly way too many spawns of linux.

[Pjotr]

The kernel was not build with security in mind. It doesn't distrust other parts in the system. The user space has no isolation.

Starting with kernel 5.4, which is default in Mint 20:
https://cloudcone.com/docs/article/what ... ernel-5-4/

Key quote:

The principal feature addition on Linux kernel 5.4 is the kernel lockdown mode which aims to enhance Linux kernel security by separating the userland and kernel code

[DAMIEN1307]

DAMIEN1307 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 7:22 am
The kernel was not build with security in mind. It doesn't distrust other parts in the system. The user space has no isolation.

Starting with kernel 5.4, which is default in Mint 20:
https://cloudcone.com/docs/article/what ... ernel-5-4/
Key quote:
The principal feature addition on Linux kernel 5.4 is the kernel lockdown mode which aims to enhance Linux kernel security by separating the userland and kernel code

Hi pjotr,
On the first "quote" up above, you had this, saying "DAMIEN1307 wrote".
NO...I didnt write this tripe, i was only quoting someone else who had written a reddit forum post...I would never write something that says that "the kernel was not built with security in mind" I know better than that...lol.

What i did say about that quote was this;

I found that article he was reading in a reddit forum...here it is...total rubbish

I only copy and pasted a comment that the original OP was referring to is all so others reading could see where that crap actually came from...DAMIEN

[Moem]

Hi pjotr,
On the first "quote" up above, you had this, saying "DAMIEN1307 wrote".
NO...I didnt write this tripe, i was only quoting someone else who had written a reddit forum post...

I've made that clearer in Pjotr's post, so no worries and carry on.

[Pjotr]

@DAMIEN1307: Oops. Sorry. @Moem: thanks.

[DAMIEN1307]

Thank you, both Moem and Pjotr, for the correction of this issue...lol...DAMIEN

[linuxviolin]

This is a quote from another forum i visit, where they were discussing Linux and how secure it was. Just wondering...

"The kernel was not build with security in mind. It doesn't distrust other parts in the system. The user space has no isolation. I can't see why people consider it "more secure" than Windows or macOS!"

On the contrary, the user space DOES have isolation! The problem with Linux, as with Windows, is that the drivers don't have isolation. The ring-based security model is only a theory, in most operating systems only ring 0 and ring 3 being used https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_ring

Not related to security, the problem with Linux, *BSD etc. is that they're monolithic, despite any use of the word "modules". That means it's quite huge, not really suited as RTOS; and yet, it's Linux that's used in the embedded controllers in all modern cars
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_kernel