Even Linux is not safe

[Darcy]

The below came from twitter:

WikiLeaks‏Verified account @wikileaks 3h3 hours ago
More
RELEASE: #CIA implants targeting SSH on Windows and Linux #BothanSpy #Gryfalcon #KitV #Vault7 https://wikileaks.org/vault7/#BothanSpy …

[Hoser Rob]

Is that a surprise? There isn't an OS in the world that hasn't been hacked. They ALL have exploits.

[mtj]

The point is: who is the less vulnerable?
I stay with gnu/linux

[Hoser Rob]

The point is: who is the less vulnerable?
I stay with gnu/linux

Ever read this?

https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2017/01/w ... s-in-2016/

And that's just one list. There are lots more similar ones.

[KBD47]

Since MS is closed software you never really know how many vulnerabilities it has. Linux has them too, but they are soon exposed and soon fixed. Google had to use threats to get MS to fix its vulnerabilities. The problem is that many old Linux servers are out there without patches or updates and when those are hit it makes Linux look more vulnerable than it actually is.

[Cosmo.]

Add the word "totally" into the title and it gets right.

[lmuserx4849]

The point is: who is the less vulnerable?
I stay with gnu/linux

I think that is true for a barebones, locked down linux. But most folks don't or can't run that way. In a way, we are as secure as the weakest link... too much emphasis is on bells and whistles and not security.

update:
This is just the kernel. Linus Torvalds on Linux Security
The kernel of the argument
A lwn.net article (consider subscribing)
Kernel security: beyond bug fixing

I'm glad the opensource community is talking about it, transparent, open-minded, and able to change. I think we should have a Linux day where we celebrate all those kernel and driver developers for their time, passion and technical skills. I wish more tech billionaires would fund rewards for finding bugs/holes in any opensource software. Remember openssl and then there is gnu privacy guard. These tech folk need money folk.

I'm finding myself downloading software from other than the original repos. I've added more than 5 PPA's. The updated software have all solved problems and fixed bugs. I'm rethink'n the fixed release model. I want a stable OS, but updated applications....hhhhmmmm....

[sphyrth]

I'm relatively safe using any OS just by not purposely screwing up.

Post something like "Even Linux collects your data!" and maybe I would have some real concerns.

[rick gen]

Post something like "Even Linux collects your data!" and maybe I would have some real concerns.

I thought that's exactly what vulnerability is all about; your data is vulnerable for collection.

[rick gen]

Ever read this?
https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2017/01/w ... s-in-2016/
And that's just one list. There are lots more similar ones.

And that's what I have always suspected. Nothing is ever secure.
All the while I've been seeing posts like "I'll never use Ubuntu-based distros. I'll be a lifelong Debian user."
Falsely assuming that Debian is this OS with super duper strength firewall.

[Pjotr]

And that's what I have always suspected. Nothing is ever secure.

Of course. We don't get those (almost daily) security updates for nothing....

[rick gen]

Of course. We don't get those (almost daily) security updates for nothing....

I wasn't even thinking about Linux Mint. I'll be a life-long Mint user, don't worry. What I'm saying is
I have many times been tempted to switch to Debian-based distros because of these posts saying it's more secure or something to that effect.
Without even giving any conclusive evidence about it. Then denigrate Ubuntu-based at the same time.
Turns out that Debian is not any more secure. So what's the advantage then when here we are happy with the software Ubuntu able to provide
many of them can't be accessed on Debian-based distros?
Speed? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

[Pjotr]

Of course. We don't get those (almost daily) security updates for nothing....

I wasn't even thinking about Linux Mint. I'll be a life-long Mint user, don't worry. What I'm saying is
I have many times been tempted to switch to Debian-based distros because of these posts saying it's more secure or something to that effect.
Without even giving any conclusive evidence about it. Then denigrate Ubuntu-based at the same time.
Turns out that Debian is not any more secure. So what's the advantage then when here we are happy with the software Ubuntu able to provide
many of them can't be accessed on Debian-based distros?
Speed? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

Yes, well, I suppose there's some elitist feeling like "those overly successful Debian derivatives are for the dumb masses, who are too stupid or inept to use authentic Debian".

I don't see the point of such elitism. While I certainly could make authentic Debian do everything I want an operating system to do for me, it's simply too much of a bother for me.

I'm by nature very lazy, I love easy, and I can save time and effort by installing Mint. And I like Mint's intelligently devised extras, like its superb Update Manager with its clever protective level system.

[KBD47]

What Debian claims is stability. It is mostly a server distro and it is known for being very reliable and conservative. LMDE is built upon Debian Stable.
Debian does have timely security updates though you are mostly stuck with older software.
The advantage of main Mint is that it is mostly ready to use out of the box, Debian can be a bit of work to get all the codecs and software you may want installed to get it ready to go. LMDE is sort of the best of both worlds.