Hi there,

Win10 is soon not supported. Tbh Linux have been on my radar since I started to break from the US big tech.

But how is security handled in Linux? Linux is pretty open-source, or am I not understanding it correctly. So how can I as a new user make sure to have the most secure machine as possible?

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    So how can I as a new user make sure to have the most secure machine as possible?

    Shut the computer down. That’s it; computer as secure as possible.

    Otherwise, if you actually want to use your computer, google for “threat model” first.

    But generally: use an adblocker in your webbrowser, don’t execute random commands/tools from the internet before you know for sure what you’re doing, update stuff now and then and make backups.

  • SayCyberOnceMore@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Just make sure everything’s updated.

    Microsoft do a good job of updating drivers and their applications, but Windows application updates vary so much.

    For Linux - mostly - the distro maintainers handle all updates and just updating is usually enough.

    After that it’s down to you… if you disable all the built-in protection and visit dodgy websites then any OS is going to struggle.

    You can improve the out-of-box security by removing software you don’t use, improving default configurations (one size doesn’t fit all) and considering if you want additional security software - this applies to any OS.

    So, to return to your question, choose a Linux distro which has regular updates and only contains applications that you use.

    • fodor@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Visiting dodgy websites in itself isn’t as risky as you make it out to be. There are very few exploits in an updated version of Chrome or Firefox that would compromise your machine.

  • Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Security on Linux is lackluster.

    Generally as long as you don’t install any untrustworthy programs you’ll be safe … but there’s a problem. Linux is an amalgamation of thousands of separate programs and most of them are maintained by one guy in Nebraska thanklessly. XZ Utils is a prime example of how vulnerable the Linux software stack is to malware.

    My advice: Keep your daily driver separate from your gaming machine, use a debian-based distro like Ubuntu or Mint for your daily driver, and always have a disaster recovery plan. My advice would basically be the same for a Windows user.

    EDIT: Also full-disk encryption. Both on Windows and Linux you can just read the contents of a hard drive no questions asked. Windows is going to address this with TPM’s but you can just use a password. Secure-boot is good because it can help guard against rootkits.

  • missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    the most secure possible? you’ll need to learn a ton. you’ll get there, but it’ll take a while.

    decently secure? install Linux Mint, install your updates, don’t run sketchy commands with URLs in them unless you know what you’re doing, maybe follow a hardening guide. you’ll be okay.

    if you need to be extremely secure and private, install Tails on a USB stick. it will be slow and frustrating, and you’ll need to save files to a second USB drive, but it will probably keep you pretty safe, and it’s decently user-friendly. just make sure you keep Tails updated! you’ll have to do that by flashing the new Tails onto a new USB drive, there’s no easy way around that.

    those are your two most user-friendly, safe approaches.

  • /home/pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    There’s a lot of people with the idea that open source can’t be secure because people see the source code.

    But imagine this. You have 2 locks, one that is completely viewable of the innerworkings, and another that is covered, both have been unbreakable, but could you imagine the balls on the guy that made the clear lock? Imagine feeling so confident that your lock was clearly the best, that you just expose it to any hacker ever and they still can’t get in.

    Microsoft can barely get things working with their closed source code.

    In reality, anything is exploitable and hackable eventually. With the open source community there are so many eyes on it that when someone notices that the program is running 2 seconds slower than it used to, they discover a vulnerability instead of just accepting it and saying “probably MS doing some BS” and dealing with it.

    • CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 hours ago

      your analogy doesn’t quite work here tbh.

      It’s not a transparent lock, a transparent lock would be easy to pick. It’s more of a usual lock, but everyone can see all the blueprints and changes done to them. You can make changes to the blueprints yourself, and if the locksmiths approve of it, the next iteration of the lock will have them included.

      Everyone who’s in the set of users of OSS software can contribute, therefore the set of people in control of the software that want it to have no backdoors whatsoever is always larger than the set of people who want to let the backdoors in, unlike in closed source, where corporate can singlehandedly decide to include a backdoor on purpose, not to mention, lots of OSS projects have such a large quantities of different people working on them, corpos won’t be able to gather so much humanpower under a single project ever.

  • communism@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    To be honest, security in the desktop Linux space has traditionally been a bit shit.

    Since you’re new, it’s important for you to understand that Linux is a kernel. That’s the most low-down part of your operating system that handles your OS talking to your hardware and vice versa. Linux is not a full OS; it doesn’t provide any userspace tools that an OS provides. That’s why people don’t install Linux on its own, but they install Linux distributions, which are full OSes using the Linux kernel that come with more or less software to make Linux a complete OS, or at least bootable. That means that there is no one way to do things in Linux. There are some Linux distributions that are security-focused, such as Qubes OS and Alpine Linux. There’s also the new immutable distros, which provide security because the entire OS is defined declaratively, meaning you can easily rollback changes, and it’s harder to get infected with malware on those systems. There’s a lot of variability. Some systems are quite secure by default. A lot of other systems do not set up any security measures by default and expect the user to do that.

    If you’re interested in hardening your Linux install, I would recommend the Arch wiki’s security page which has a lot of good advice.

    Security is a really broad topic and the relevant security measures for you are going to vary based on your threat model. General good practices include using some form of MAC, setting up a firewall, don’t install random crap you don’t need (and if you are getting software from somewhere that isn’t vetted, e.g. the AUR, you should vet it yourself—e.g. if you use the AUR, learn to read PKGBUILDs), use full-disk encryption. Anti-virus software is largely not necessary on Linux, especially if you only install software from your package manager and follow other security good practice.

  • BCsven@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    Microsoft being closed source hides their bugs and vulnerabilities. Even when security researchers have sent in reports MS has sat on them due to profit being motive not security, and not taking vulners seriously until the researchers say screw that and publish it.

    Linux being open can have all eyes on it, and if there is an exploit, there is a community willing to help ASAP.

    On many distros you may have weekly or even daily updates or patches coming through with fixes. A distro like OpenSUSE has various patch and list patch commands that show what security patches are avilailable, their status (critical, recommended) and if it’s needed on your system or not depending on what you have installed. You don’t get transparency on closed source systems.

    If you are paranoid about security you can use AppArmor tools or SELinux. AppArmor can be set to learn how an app behaves, then you lock it so the app can’t do new things.

    SELinux you set rules for files and folders, so even with remote access an attacker can’t access data if rules don’t allow file listing over SSH etc

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      About sandboxing, not like the Java-VM helps much in Android security.

      The inherent problem why sandboxing should not be on this list:

      sandboxing cycle

    • pitiable_sandwich540@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I think this article is a great analysis of what deep rooted flaws linux desktop distros have, but I think it is a bit disconnected from the average user (obligatory xkcd).

      If the average linux user needs a programm they google what they need land on stack overflow telling them to use their package manager to install it.

      If the average windows user needs a program/feature, they google it. They klick on the first link and install the first .exe they find. Has anyone you know used the microsoft store?

      Or take gaming as another example. The default expirience for online multiplayer games requires kernel level anticheat on windows. This effectively circumvents windows carefully crafted security model for most tripple A online games.

      So yes the average linux machine is probably not as secure as a MacOs or windows machine. But the way they are commonly used I highly doubt windows machines are more secure.

  • arsCynic@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    So how can I as a new user make sure to have the most secure machine as possible?

    1. Always use uBlock Origin in a Firefox-based browser (e.g., LibreWolf, Zen).
    2. Never click on links in communication of any kind you didn’t expect or are too good to be true.
    3. Never reinstall Windows.

    ⚜︎ arscyni.cc: modernity ∝ nature.

  • spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    I’ve used Linux Mint and other distros daily for more than 10 years. Never had a virus or malware issue and don’t even run antivirus software.

    During that same time I’ve had to help friends remove viruses and malware from their Windows machines dozens of times. The latest Windows disaster I’ve assisted with was a few months ago. A retired friend had her Windows 10 machine hijacked and $8K stolen from her savings account. Making sure the malware was removed required hours of work formatting the drive and reinstalling Windows.

    IMO you are far safer with a plain vanilla Linux install that you are with Windows, no matter what steps you take to secure your Windows installation.

    • Mihies@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      You sure though? Windows has more viruses because it’s more popular (desktop) and monolithic, not because Linux is much better in that regard. IOW Linux is not magically virus resistant. If you run an infected file, it will infect both without much trouble. Also removing infection would be similar. At least that’s my understanding.

      • spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        You sure though?

        What do you want? It should go without saying that I am absolutely sure of my own experience.

        In probably 15 years total of running Linux I have not had a single problem with malware or viruses. Part of that time was also running Windows regularly and my Windows systems DID become infected with both malware and viruses occasionally, despite my best efforts. And you’re not mentioning the fact that Linux runs on 63% of the server market and those systems are under constant attack.

        Reports of Linux system infections are truly rare, and considering the nature of the user community would be widely and loudly reported if they were happening.

        Do you have any experience in this matter? Have you had your own Linux installations infected, or are you a Windows user questioning what you’re reading? (Perfectly reasonable if the 2nd one’s the case.) Please fill us in on the details.

        • Mihies@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Servers are a different story. I’m both Windows and Linux user, meaning more towards the later recently. I’m still wondering why do you think Linux is more resistant to malware - besides the incompatibility (mentioned in other reply here). Your experience doesn’t tell much about why and I wrote my theory.

            • Mihies@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              I think I’m cautious enough to not have the experience, luckily. But why does that matter? I’m still waiting from you for rationale why is Linux experiencing less infections. And you keep asking unimportant questions…

      • DiamondOrthodox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        It’s hard enough getting legit software in general to work on Linux. Even if a virus was written for Ubuntu, it is likely not going to run on Fedora, or Arch, or even downstream/upstream versions of Ubuntu.

        Edit: Although thinking about it, Linux terminal commands are pretty universal, so if you manage to execute a script or terminal command as root or sudo then I guess it could apply to multiple distros.

        • Mihies@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Ha, yes, incompatibility is the secret defense of linux 🫣. But even without root access, malware can create a lot of damage.

      • Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        The Linux kernel is monolithic too. This and the slow adoption of Rust are the two major security complaints of the GrapheneOS regarding Linux. I might change to COSMIC when it’s ready just to spite the luddites that oppose Rust.

        • Mihies@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          My bad, used the wrong word there. I meant that Windows is very compatible with older versions and different flavors.

  • johannes@lemmy.jhjacobs.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    As others have said, Linux Security is a very broad topic. But the main thing is keeping your system updated, only install packages from your distro’s repositories, install a firewall and don’t install anything you don’t need should go a long way :)

    For example, i use Alpine Linux as a desktop OS. This means i only install packages through apk, from the Alpine repositories. I run apk update and apk upgrade commands every friday. I use Flathub for most desktop software which i also update weekly. (To be even more secure, only install verified flatpak’s). my firewall has no incoming ports open (really not needed on my desktop). And i keep myself updated with the latest news regarding Alpine Linux, and Linux in general. So i am aware of most vulnerabilities as they are published. This is a pretty secure system.

    Later on if you want even more security you can start following the CIS guidelines for your favorite distro, but the above should be a good start.

    But good security is not just jeeping your system updated, it also means you have good backups in place, in case randsomware hits your system. And then there’s also the monitoring of your system for suspicious behaviour :) But these are far more advanced topics!

  • Sunoc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Great to hear you’re willing to move to Linux!

    Like other comments pointed, there is no such thing as “most secure”. It’s a deep rabbit hole and it’s better in general to assume that any device connected to the internet is at risk. Hell, any storage can be compromised if the entity interested put enough effort into it.

    I recommande reading the page on Privacy Guides, it gives a good overview. In general, you should consider your thread model: what is you situation and why do you want security or privacy for?

    • Regarding security, I would say for a general case, any modern, popular Linux distro with full disk encryption is probably good enough and as secure as any other OS. I would recommande going with a Fedora Silverblue or an OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, but the more popular Ubuntu or Mint are great as well for new users.
    • If you also want “good enough” privacy, you should focus more on the software you are running, and the situation of your data, especially in your usage of your web browser. But that’s a different topic entirely.
    • If you actually want more advanced security though, that’s where it becomes difficult/fun. You need to consider what you are trying to protect yourself from, specifically. Virus? Maybe a compartmentized OS like Qubes might be a solution. Physical access to your device? You can get a dead man switch that kills you system disk if your laptop is taken away from you. You want to hide your OS install from a security inspection? You can set a deniable full disk encryption with a facade OS that protect your from a rubber hose attack. Probably many other things exist I am not aware of.

    But anyway, if your question is “Is a Linux distro at least as secure as my previous Windows”, the answer is definitely YES imo. And if you want MOAR, it’s gonna be a fun ride!

    [edit: and yes, updates! Update you system plz.]

  • Auster@thebrainbin.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    One of the tips I’d give is the same for Windows, the best anti-virus is the user to know what he/she is doing. Linux is a better in that regard because it obfuscates very little, unlike Windows.

    Also in line with viruses, given how many variants of a base system there can be, unless the virus is compiled in your machine, to my knowledge chances are higher for a virus to fail to function properly, or even at all. A way for a coder to circumvent it would be to bloat the code with system-specific instructions, which would be harder to create and optimize, but if a big enough group in resources take on the challenge, it could potentially be achieved.

    On another point, something I expect to become a problem in Linux is that you need the admin’s password, which is pretty much the master key of the system, for way too many things, even to install a web browser or the equivalent of 7-Zip. With scams usually involving social engineering, having the user hand a key from a system that depends mainly on it makes the system far more vulnerable.

    Now, given Windows is still the bigger desktop system, scammers and virus distribution still focus on it, but as Linux grows, more ill-intended people may focus on it.

    But still, Windows has far less variants, barely anything there uses passwords or more adninistration-oriented safelocks, and is much worse for troubleshooting (and having used most systems from 98FE onward, I also think it’s getting worse), so I’d say Linux still has the advantages in those points I could think of.

    • Aelyra@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Also in line with viruses, given how many variants of a base system there can be, unless the virus is compiled in your machine, to my knowledge chances are higher for a virus to fail to function properly, or even at all.

      Cross-platform malware does exist, and one of the most common and practical forms is malicious browser extensions. A harmful Chrome or Firefox add-on can function just as effectively on Linux as it does on Windows.

      On another point, something I expect to become a problem in Linux is that you need the admin’s password, which is pretty much the master key of the system, for way too many things, even to install a web browser or the equivalent of 7-Zip. With scams usually involving social engineering, having the user hand a key from a system that depends mainly on it makes the system far more vulnerable.

      Multiple types of dangerous malware can run on Linux without requiring root privileges. As previously mentioned, malicious browser extensions pose a significant threat. Harmful actions like deleting files or logging keystrokes can also be carried out using a Python script that doesn’t need root access.

      Linux is undoubtedly more secure than Windows for a variety of reasons, but Linux users should still remain cautious. No system is completely invulnerable.

  • transscribe7891@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I used to use ClamAV, but not sure I noticed much of a difference, so haven’t really used any antivirus software for a while now. Curious what people in this thread think of clam.

    • Nilz@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      ClamAV looks for signatures of known viruses, most of which target Windows and not Linux. So it’s debatable how much more secure you really are by running ClamAV

    • UheldigeBenny@feddit.dkOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Since I was referring to win10 losing support I thought it was understood that I asked about security updates like windows does. Pardon me. But to specify, how is the ongoing security updates working on Linux? Who does it? Is it even being done? It is an assumption on my side that the security is done in the same manner like win and mac, with continuous updates but that might as well be a wrong assumption.

      • slazer2au@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        It depends on how you installed it.

        If you installed something via apt on a Debian based system then Debian will track the projects and push updates when the are available. If you are doing things with Snap or Flatpack then the developers of those specific applications will have some form of update plan.

        • UheldigeBenny@feddit.dkOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Ah okay… I am kinda new in the lingo so sorry if I butcher some of it.

          So it is the developers of the distros who are pushing updates?

          I know you can never trust companies like Microsoft, but they are a bit more regulated by laws as they are big corps… How can you trust a distro enough to e.g. use online banking ?

          • jutty@blendit.bsd.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            I think the ethos of open source flips this thinking. You should not trust. Microsoft may not be noting down your banking details, but you actually don’t and can’t know if it is. What it is doing is storing other personal data, because that is in its policies. Now, to what extent it takes advantage of this capability and permission, it is again unknown and unknowable.

            Microsoft may be a big corp, but some distros are the backbone of highly critical systems, and collectively they run the vast majority of servers.

            You don’t “trust” your distro. Or your laws. Everything being done is in the open, so you can see for yourself. If you lack the knowledge to do that, there are others who are doing it and many are sharing what they find. You will “trust” on some level, because of its reputation, how established it is, but trust here means something very different from letting a huge blob of unknown code do whatever it does because I trust you.

            • UheldigeBenny@feddit.dkOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              This is actually what I am a bit afraid of. Im danish and Denmark is becoming way to digital in the sense where we use digital ID to access banking and other systems which needs you to be identified (tax, healthcare etc).

              The open source stuff is a bit daunting when you actually don’t know shit like me.

              But as you say, Microsoft might not be better.

              • WFH@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                23 hours ago

                Honestly, Microsoft is one of the most active participants in the shitty fascist dystopian surveillance shitshow in the us right now. It’s not that it “might not be better”, they are literally one of the worst.

                Open source doesn’t work on trust, it works on scrutiny. Which is much easier to do when everything is open and therefore auditable. The threat model is very different, and the mitigation process is much faster since thousands of companies, including the biggest ones, need a secure Linux to run all their servers.

                Open source software security issues comme mainly from :

                • plain old bugs like everything else
                • supply chain attacks (Example), which are actually very difficult to pull off since they tend to actually fail because of said scrutiny

                What open source software won’t do because doing so would immediately kill a project:

                • deliberate backdoors “for law enforcement” like most commercial platforms
                • invasive telemetry/spyware
                • Microsoft Recall that literally records and stores indefinitely absolutely every single interaction you have with your computer
                • basically everything that’s deliberately harmful to privacy and/or security
                • enshittification to maximize profit since there is basically no financial incentive and no venture capitalist behind distros
              • Aelyra@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                If you’re trying to avoid forced telemetry and similar tracking, you’re generally safer with most of the big Linux distros. Most of them don’t collect data at all, and if they do, it’s usually easy to opt out with just a click.

                Going for lesser-known distros does increase your risk a bit, but the fact that they’re open source helps deter some bad actors, since the code can be inspected by others.

                And if you’re worried about super-sophisticated backdoors, keep in mind you’re not exactly safe with Microsoft either. A rogue employee could still cause harm, and because it’s closed source, any malicious changes might take way longer to catch.

          • rollmagma@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            That’s an interesting question. It’s pretty nuanced. I don’t know of any laws that would stop Microsoft from going “oops, we had a bug in our software, sorry about that”. Same for the linux distros. Unless you’re a corporate customer, then that would be included as part of some contract. So at the end of the day you trust Microsoft’s reputation. You’d trust your distro of choice as well. So as a thought experiment I would suggest that the most secure operating system provider is the one that ships a very similar version of its OS to both end-users and enterprise customers. Some Linux distributions fall into that category, some definitely not.

            Also, keep in mind that some distros are run mostly by individual contributors not employed by any knowingly reputable company, so I’d stay away from those by default.