And to those who think I am derailing... http://news.softpedia.com/news/microsoft-wants-all-linux-dev...
You mean the operating system where with the default display server any application can read keystrokes, read mouse events, and make screen grabs of any other application? The operating system where no apps are sandboxed by default? The operating system where once you find a local root exploit, which are not rare, you can embed a root kit deep in the operating system?
Sorry for the harsh comment, but Linux is hardly the pinnacle of security. (Perhaps with rare exceptions like Qubes or RHEL with SELinux on servers.)
As compared to Windows in which an app can't do that?
> The operating system where no apps are sandboxed by default?
As compared to Windows or Mac where apps are sandboxed by default?
> The operating system where once you find a local root exploit, which are not rare, you can embed a root kit deep in the operating system?
As a desktop user, not sure how this applies. Windows has rootkits as does Mac.
However, every time I boot my computer my computer doesn't call home. I am also not worried about government agencies having unfettered access to my machine as a default setting. With Windows I don't know that. When I install Mac I give them my e-mail address and thereby my identity just to install the operating system. They also have my credit card number. When a Mac calls home they have my IP. So anything I do online can be traced by to my identity as a default setting through Apple... a company not located in my country.
As I said a semblance of security and privacy. Better than no semblance which at this point is the case with Windows and Mac. I know it's not real security, but best that no money can buy at this time.
I also have Windows. It's for playing old games... Surprising they still work after 15 years.
Yes, Apps can't do that.
> As compared to Windows or Mac where apps are sandboxed by default?
Yes, apps from both the windows and mac App Stores are sandboxed.
I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not saying Windows is perfect at all, but the GUI security is better. If nothing else, consider the classic ctrl+alt+delete, which no app can catch. On Linux there is no way to be sure the 'login' you are seeing isn't a program someone has installed to capture logins. On Windows I know the login is genuine if I press ctrl+alt+delete.
I have AutoHotKey and ShareX. The first reads keystrokes from anywhere, and the second takes screenshots from anywhere and anything.
It's pretty clear that Windows applications most definitely can do that.
And if he is, that's an absolutely academical points as 99% of all Windows-users runs zero applications from the store.
Nothing like an imaginary straw-man argument on the internet, eh? :)
Unless you happened to install Ubuntu, which used to send all your local file searches to the cloud to find Amazon deals
Windows provides UI isolation between privilege levels:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb625963.aspx
As compared to Windows or Mac where apps are sandboxed by default?
As the sibling commenter mentions. Mac App Store applications are required to be sandboxed:
https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Se...
The same applies for Windows Store apps.
Windows has rootkits as does Mac.
Mac has system integrity protection (SIP). Even as root, you cannot replace system files (unless you disable SIP):
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204899
So, in contrast to default Linux distributions, a root kit cannot replace system files (a common trick that root kits apply is to replace system files to preserve itself during reboots and to hide the root kit, e.g. by hiding it from 'ps' output).
Moreover, macOS only loads signed kernel extensions, so it is not possible for a root kit to inject itself as a loadable kernel module. I think the same is true for Windows, but I am not familiar enough with Windows.
I am also not worried about government agencies having unfettered access to my machine as a default setting.
You are throwing two things one one heap now: (1) having a backdoor and (2) sending out usage data.
If you believe that there is a difference between Linux, macOS, or Windows when it comes to (1), this is utterly naive. Linux distributions have a large number of package maintainers and upstream projects. You cannot be certain that none of these ten thousands of people is compromised and inserts a subtle backdoor. And even if you are certain about this, it's likely that government actors have a collection of exploitable remote and local exploits.
When it comes to sending out data, such as usage data, use an app firewall. E.g. with a program like Little Snitch, it is easy to configure which program can contact what server in the outside world.
Ps. Linux has the potential to be very secure. A lot of the technology is there (e.g. Wayland and SELinux). The problem is that the Linux community is too conservative and/or believes in the myth that Linux is already secure.
The majority of apps that I install come from the App Store.
Moreover, some vendors also sandbox non-app store apps. E.g. Chrome tabs, Photos, or Safari tabs.
* Fedora and Ubuntu are more aggressive about compiling security features into the packaged binaries, whilst Debian considers package build flags to be the decision of individual maintainers, so coverage is more piece-meal.
* Fedora ships SELinux enabled. I believe that current versions of Android is the only popular non-Red Hat Linux-based system that does that. The common compliant about RH's SELinux implementation is that it is so restrictive about system integrity that it blocks actual system administrators from doing routine tasks unless they remember to change the appropriate SELinux policy settings first.
* Fedora 25 now uses a Wayland implementation for managing graphics by default, rather than X, so that the security issues of X don't apply.
* Fedora 24+ includes Flatpak, so that there is a system for sandboxed applications. Fedora 25 provides the UI integration for non-technical users to run Flatpak packages (once developers build them).
* The RPM/DNF package management system is more stringent about checking downloaded packages than APT.
I am also a proud and happy Linux user going on about 10 years now, and what's great is that I know all the knowledge I've acquired will still be relevant many decades into the future -- not sure the same can be said of Windows or MacOS.
I also often see it brought up that Fedora uses SELinux by default.