Are we Linux users arrogant about security?

[TPreston]

 

lol. You do love your strawman analogies don't you? Just because GNU/Linux users know they are safer doesn't imply they are ignorant of potential threats or apathetic about security.

Oh so they do use endpoint security then ?

It's a non-sequitur. In fact Linux encourages one to explore, experiment, and learn. I'm more aware about security and how my OS works than I ever was when I was running Windows.

Wow that's delusional give it to granny and she will be an it pro.

I couldn't read your link as it was behind a wall. Not that it matters anyway. Malware simply isn't successful on the Playstore or Apple's iOS in the long run.

The playstore isn't needed its done the same way as on windows dodgy adverts and emails, Endpoint security would filter this the linux kernel would not.

 

[Gerowen]

There may be some sub-culture of Linux users who are arrogant enough to think they're better than other people and that their systems are invincible, kind of like there's a sub-culture of Windows users who think anything Microsoft says or does is gold and the rest of the world is just jealous of DirectX or XBox Live or Silverlight or whatever, but at the end of the day, those users do not represent either group as a whole.  Most Linux users I've met are very security conscious.  I have an anti-virus installed on my Linux machine.  It doesn't run all the time in the background or anything like that, but it's there if I feel the need to scan something, particularly if I'm transferring a file to a person who is running Windows.  Most Linux based systems that I'm aware of publish their security notices publicly for those who are interested.  Debian's can be found at https://www.debian.org/security/ , Ubuntu's can be found at http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/ , etc.

When talking about Linux security, it's important to remember that "Linux" is just the kernel around which many operating systems are built, and in addition to any vulnerabilities in the kernel itself, every single additional piece of software you install, from your wireless card driver to your web browser, is a potential avenue for attack.  It doesn't matter if you're running Linux if there's a vulnerability in your web browser that leaves you open to attack.  Are Linux based operating systems generally more resistant to malware?  Sure they are.  Are they invincible?  No, far from it.

[simplezz]

Oh so they do use endpoint security then ?

What has endpoint security got to do with ordinary desktop users? That's corporate networks.

The playstore isn't needed its done the same way as on windows dodgy adverts and emails

It might be on Windows, but it's not the main attack vector on mobile.

[TPreston]

 

What has endpoint security got to do with ordinary desktop users? That's corporate networks.

Internet security whatever it would filter these threats the os would not.

It might be on Windows, but it's not the main attack vector on mobile.

Ah a shifting of the goalposts now its gone from it cant happen because the playstore to its not the main attack vector.

So much for the Linux kernel and its magical security features.

[simplezz]

Ah a shifting of the goalposts now its gone from it cant happen because the playstore to its not the main attack vector.

So much for the Linux kernel and its magical security features.

I didn't say it can't happen. Just that it's far less likely. And it has nothing to do with the kernel. You're talking about social engineering/exploitation attacks. That's much harder to pull off than getting someone to download an app from the Playstore, which is where most of Android's malware threats are targeted.

[Ulyses]

Like it is always the case, not all learned people are good educators. They could often come off as arrogant. But, while Linux world has it's share of ignorants, it has serious business roots, forcing out weaker workforce. Hence, the security mark points higher for everybody involved.

 

Edited by haggis

[TPreston]

I didn't say it can't happen. Just that it's far less likely. And it has nothing to do with the kernel. You're talking about social engineering/exploitation attacks. That's much harder to pull off than getting someone to download an app from the Playstore, which is where most of Android's malware threats are targeted.

Actually its much easier to pull off, It requires no flaws in the software no advanced knowledge of computers just the users ignorance.

[Veiva]

I didn't say it can't happen. Just that it's far less likely. And it has nothing to do with the kernel. You're talking about social engineering/exploitation attacks. That's much harder to pull off than getting someone to download an app from the Playstore, which is where most of Android's malware threats are targeted.

Social engineering and phishing are perhaps the most common attack vectors nowadays, and have been successful for a very long time. They're not even difficult to pull off. Misleading ads/pop-ups, emails, and even in-person. Heck, there's people who call random landlines saying "I'm Microsoft, your computer has viruses, please follow our instructions to fix it." And then there's the "ENABLE THE THUMBS DOWN/DISLIKE/HATE STATUS FEATURE BY PASTING THIS JS INTO UR BROWSER" Facebook stupidities...

How do you think most Windows users get viruses? Just by connecting to the internet? A default Windows install behind any consumer router can't be affected by Blaster-like worms. Most websites a typical user would visit don't have viruses or have exploitable ad distributors, either. In the end, most users screw up because they think they have to download some software as a result of some false pretense, usually through social engineering (a call, an email, a misleading ad).

We, as individuals, are the weakest links in any sort of security. Technology can try and minimize the effects, but in the end, as long as the user can install software or modify the hardware, enough leverage and the security of any system won't be enough. Even the most secure agencies are at risk of a rogue agent, go ask the NSA how Edward Snowden worked out.

[simplezz]

Social engineering and phishing are perhaps the most common attack vectors nowadays, and have been successful for a very long time. They're not even difficult to pull off. Misleading ads/pop-ups, emails, and even in-person. Heck, there's people who call random landlines saying "I'm Microsoft, your computer has viruses, please follow our instructions to fix it." And then there's the "ENABLE THE THUMBS DOWN/DISLIKE/HATE STATUS FEATURE BY PASTING THIS JS INTO UR BROWSER" Facebook stupidities...

How do you think most Windows users get viruses? Just by connecting to the internet? A default Windows install behind any consumer router can't be affected by Blaster-like worms. Most websites a typical user would visit don't have viruses or have exploitable ad distributors, either. In the end, most users screw up because they think they have to download some software as a result of some false pretense, usually through social engineering (a call, an email, a misleading ad).

We, as individuals, are the weakest links in any sort of security. Technology can try and minimize the effects, but in the end, as long as the user can install software or modify the hardware, enough leverage and the security of any system won't be enough. Even the most secure agencies are at risk of a rogue agent, go ask the NSA how Edward Snowden worked out.

I was talking about Android specifically, in which case sideloading is disabled by default. No doubt it's a major problem on Windows. I know someone who got one of those calls claiming to be from Microsoft who wanted them to download a program to fix a problem. Luckily, they were running Linux and were immune from it.

As for how users encounter malware, a lot of it also comes from installing some random software they downloaded. Be it a supposedly free game, or trojan packaged as an app. Either way, it usually comes down to the user running an app. That's harder to achieve on Linux (both Android and GNU/Linux) due to permissions and configurations. Not only that, but users will be wary of installing anything not coming from the usual sources (respository/app store). User behaviour has a big impact on the success rates of a lot of the social engineering scams.

 

[+Warwagon MVC]

To a certain point Linux because of the lack of viruses could be considered security through obscurity. All Linux needs is a nice wide spread zero day privilege escalation vulnerability and they would be in trouble too

[simplezz]

To a certain point Linux because of the lack of viruses could be considered security through obscurity.

That does factor into it, but it's not the only reason. As I said previously, Google's Playstore's low malware incidence illustrates that how software is installed plays a far bigger role. GNU/Linux's repository system does the same thing. It's a natural barrier to malware and trojans. If Microsoft ever gets its act together and creates a viable Store alternative to win32 desktop software, even Windows might eradicate its endemic malware problem. I won't hold my breath though.

All Linux needs is a nice wide spread zero day privilege escalation vulnerability and they would be in trouble too

That's a lot harder to achieve given the variety of configurations. And even if there were, there's no malware ecosystem/infrastructure to take advantage of it. Windows has tons of toolkits and packages to exploit potential holes in the OS.

Shellshock is probably the biggest one I've ever seen. Yet it wasn't easy to exploit broadly.

[Haggis Veteran]

ok so lets make a few points

*nix still has viruses/root kits/trojans etc just now as many

I dont have anti virus on my linux computers but i also dont have any windows computers in the house, if i did i would defo have anti virus on there.

 

Also whoever said you dont need a firewall on *nix....you need your head looked at. In what way shape or form does linux make it so that you dont need a firewall?

[Haggis Veteran]

Also cleared out all the childish posts, if you want to name call then feel free to do so but you wont be here very long

Can we at least try to have an adult conversation without resorting to name calling?

[Studio384]

Now I know back in the day Apple prided itself on the "we cant get viruses" line - but is it a case that Linux users are indeed like this or is it just the typical misconception from ill-informed people?

It's not ill-informed , it's the hard reality. Linux users tend to think that they are save from viruses and other malicious software, yet many of the largest botnets are made up out of Linux-systems? Why, because its freaking easy to break into it because there isn't much to protect it except the build-in security messures and nobody every checks. But don't worry, that's not arrogant. It's ignorant you're looking for.

[Art_X]

It's not ill-informed , it's the hard reality. Linux users tend to think that they are save from viruses and other malicious software, yet many of the largest botnets are made up out of Linux-systems? Why, because its freaking easy to break into it because there isn't much to protect it except the build-in security messures and nobody every checks. But don't worry, that's not arrogant. It's ignorant you're looking for.

 

I never said it couldn't, I have pointed this out to Linux users in the past, all systems are hack-able and can have viruses, not all Linux users are the same, I often go back to Windows because of the elitist attitude I get on the forum of the distro I use due to the attitude of some the responses, not even one who uses Linux knows how to use it right out the door, and often people will require help to find a solution to their issue, if they want Linux to become widely used on the desktop they need to drop said attitude, then again that attitude isnt  just on Linux, Mac and Windows has plenty of people like it too

[simplezz]

Also whoever said you dont need a firewall on *nix....you need your head looked at. In what way shape or form does linux make it so that you dont need a firewall?

Routers already have a built in firewall. It really isn't necessary for ordinary users unless you plan on running internet facing services.

On Windows you need one because you're faced with external and internal threats.

[simplezz]

It's not ill-informed , it's the hard reality. Linux users tend to think that they are save from viruses and other malicious software, yet many of the largest botnets are made up out of Linux-systems?

Okay, name a single large botnet running on ordinary GNU/Linux desktop systems.

[Haggis Veteran]

Routers already have a built in firewall. It really isn't necessary for ordinary users unless you plan on running internet facing services.

On Windows you need one because you're faced with external and internal threats.

And why would *nix not be at risk of internal threats, public networks, coffee shops etc etc

[Gerowen]

 

And why would *nix not be at risk of internal threats, public networks, coffee shops etc etc

I keep a firewall turned on for this reason.  Routers fail, can be compromised, etc.  Other machines on the network can be infected, especially when guests are over at your house using your wifi.  The PC in the living room on the TV is a desktop, but my personal one is a laptop, and I often take it out with me and connect to public networks.

[x.iso]

And "We don't get PC viruses" is true, they have their own set. 

But isn't Mac a PC? anything x86 is considered a PC as far as I know.

[Dick Montage]

But isn't Mac a PC? anything x86 is considered a PC as far as I know.

You can either choose to be pedantic, or follow the thread whereby  "PC" is generally taken to mean Windows running on an IBM clone.  Your choice really!

[adrynalyne]

You can either choose to be pedantic, or follow the thread whereby  "PC" is generally taken to mean Windows running on an IBM clone.  Your choice really!

Maybe to the technically unaware crowd. 

Windows viruses is accurate, PC viruses is not. Do you not call GNU/Linux machines PCs as well?

[simplezz]

 

And why would *nix not be at risk of internal threats, public networks, coffee shops etc etc

When I say internal threats, I'm generally talking about malware, rootkits, and viruses running on the desktop system. You're right about public networks etc though. In those cases it is wise to run a firewall. However, on a typical home network that's behind a router, it really isn't necessary unless you're running internet facing services.

[The Evil Overlord]

But isn't Mac a PC? anything x86 is considered a PC as far as I know.

Well Technically, yes, it's a Personal Computer (regardless of operating system)

[simonlang]

@firewalls  

wasn't there a line of arguing a few years ago on neowin? i remember the debate going that way that if you use a firewall the possible intruder will get a "blocked" (stealth?)  port info back so exactly knowing that this port is potentially open and only secured by a firewall and will then go along and try to get in?  and if not open by a router no signal will be sent back so the intruder doesn't know if that port would be potentially open to attack?