My main worry with Linux becoming more popular is that it will be attacked with more malware and viruses. I wouldn't mind though if Linux programmers could come up with better protection.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 54 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Linux is already what a decent chunk of servers run, so I don't really see it increasing malware.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 38 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

The insecure parts of Linux is mostly on the DE side opposed to the core OS part that servers use. We absolutely will see more vulnerabilities in the future as Linux grows.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 12 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

Many developments over the last few years have been for improving those aspects, e.g. Wayland is far more secure than X11 could ever be. There will be more vulnerabilities found, but it won't be as bad as one might fear.

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 weeks ago

Flatpak too, they could force more filesystem restrictions tho, line Android apps

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 1 points 3 weeks ago

Wayland takes a lot of abuse but it is a great example of what is great about FOSS. Completely proprietary software could never abide that level of disruption.

If being driven by a minor player, it is just too hard and too risky. A commercial player with the economic dominance to pull it off would never see enough financial benefit to bother.

Take Windows. Even though modern Windows is from the “New Technology” branch of the Windows family, the security model was flawed with all users commonly running as Admin. Instead of really changing that, they have introduced a couple layers of duct tape ( eg. UAC ) but not fundamentally fixed it.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago

What vulnerabilities are you talking about? Linux is pretty solid especially with wayland and flatpaks.

Throw in some other tools like mandatory access controls and you are set

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 8 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Well, servers don't generally run Thunderbird and Firefox

[–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Most of the Windows malware gets deployed by some user downloading and executing random files they downloaded on the web. Since installing applications on Linux is usually done through some centralized package manager or app store (Flathub), it almost entirely eliminates this attack vector. Running random scripts from the internet by downloading them using curl and piping them into sudo bash is a whole nother issue though. Noob-friendly distros like Ubuntu should IMO have some safeguards in place to block these actions.

[–] pixelscript@lemm.ee 4 points 4 weeks ago

Since installing applications on Linux is usually done through some centralized package manager or app store (Flathub), it almost entirely eliminates this attack vector.

xz moment.

Yes, I see that weasel word "almost" in that sentence. I expect it's going to be doing increasingly heavy lifting as Linux becomes a more lucrative target to attack over time.

Your point generally stands, though. Even if they're fallible, at least someone is vetting it at all somewhere in this pipeline.

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 weeks ago

They have, snaps

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 weeks ago

Linux is a lot easier to secure

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

Linux-based OSes are less uniform than Windows. They could and probably will be targeted, but exploits won't spread because of how many verities they are and how different and incompatible they can be. Some, for example, don't even use the GNU utils and userland.

[–] pound_heap@lemm.ee 9 points 4 weeks ago

This petition is for developing something dubbed "EU-Linux", so if implemented as is will be pretty uniform

[–] gens@programming.dev 6 points 4 weeks ago

That is mostly false. Most of the code that faces the network is the same. As is most of the background running code. Linux is still more secure.