https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Weston-W... is a good reference for all the stuff that Desktop Linux in 2017 is for the most part, missing
Let say we had two such machines and gave them each a reachable ip address and let the first test just be them running unattended until unwanted software got in.
In the second experiment we had the same machines go to random websites (top 1k), clicking randomly, using the default web browser.
In the third, we let them click and run attachment from email spam.
In the fourth and final experiment, we hire pen testers to target the machines explicitly.
With the same conviction that xpaulbettsx wrote, I have no doubt that the first 3 tests would show Windows 10 going down first. The amount of threats that targets window user is just order of magnitude more than those targeting linux users. The fourth test might give different results, but users who want to defend against targeted attack are generally advised to use extra security tools to defend themselves.
We should take the metric of "given a motivated party, how difficult would it be to exploit this machine" I have no doubt people are already sufficiently motivated to exploit Windows. But maybe only the NSA gives a shit about Linux- do we leave them unchecked?
9 connect to Modern Windows apps, 1 for ICMPv4, 12 for ICMPv6, 1 for IGMP, 1 for ISATAP, 12 for TCP, Cast to device, IPHTTPS, Network Discovery, WiDi. 15 UDP: 2 for Cast to device, 2 for DHCP, 1 for Teredo, 1 for Delivery Optimization, 1 for mDNS, 7 for network discovery, 1 for miracast.
Example: Being in an armored car in a war zone is still more risky than riding a bike in a peaceful country side, even if the bike has significant less security than an armored car. The Advice then is not to tell people in war zones to get bikes, nor is it to tell people to get rid of bikes in favor of armored cars. Security needs to match the need, which depends on the threat level.
In my above post I included "targeted attack" as the fourth test, named by security theory as an attack by a motivated party towards a specific resource. If a motivated party wants to attack a specific resource, then the defender needs to raise security above that of general security. Many government agencies have policies based on such threats, and neither a default Windows 10 or default Linux distribution would qualify for such environment. SELinux however was designed for that threat level and is thus common in military organizations, banks, and similar high risk environments.
When your threat model includes Microsoft or US surveillance then no Microsoft OS can provide you the security you're aiming for.
Then again Desktop Linux is no OpenBSD or GRsecurity[1], A hardened linux experience usually doesn't come out of the box with Desktop Linux, but still there are options to explore[2] if you're so inclined.
[1]: https://grsecurity.net/ [2]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Security
Or you can do nothing, in which case you're probably less secure.
---
[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppArmor
[2] sudo apt install apparmor-profiles-extra
I don't know anyone in my immediate circle of peers - not even people who use SELinux on servers or in products that they develop - who doesn't disable SELinux on their desktop. They're not idiots, either, nor re-booted Windows programmers that the IoT and DevOps craze has thrown into the Linux world, many of us have been using Linux since back when there was no E in RHEL.
I feel like there should be a way to write a new set of simplified tooling on top of the kernel API.
I've been running fedora at home an on my laptop for about a year now, and don't need to turn SElinux off. I only needed to add one custom role myself too, when trying to mount certain host directories as volumes in docker. Which is fair enough.
Not only do you get security updates for your distro with the vast majority of Linux distros, but you also get it for all your 3rd party software, using the same system mechanism.
They may not push the updates automatically, (you can of course set it that way), but some of us still want to be in control of what gets installed on our machines
That's not to say it can't be improved, but the situation isn't quite as bad as you are painting it, ie there are mainstream distros that come hardened by default and security patches are regularly backported.
I'd argue that macOS is also technologically less secure than modern Windows, yet its users are in no more danger than Windows users are, (despite its theoretically security), because security depends on a lot of factors including the user culture, market share etc. i.e. Linux doesn't have a culture of downloading executables from random websites for one.
I'd guess most distributions feel like they're providing an adequate level of protection for their users as of now, without introducing too much friction. Once that is no longer the case, it's easy to turn on a few more knobs, the software is already there.
Why is getting the latest security updates giving a false sense of security exactly?
> The File Manager UI, for example, lacks too many features and user must investigate alternatives and either assume that everything is all right or deeply examine security vulnerabilities for each available option. Same goes for basic things like text editor or calculator and so on.
This is where you're being unfair, the notion that the default file manager is not good enough is subjective, it is plenty good for most people.
(Finder for macOS also lacks many features, yet many people never bother with alternatives).
Moreover, if you do need to find a replacement, if it is in the official repos, it probably means it is popular enough to be solid.
As for things like an editor,, are you telling me that Notepad is more featured than gedit?
Because in quite a few distributions you don't get security updates reliably. For example Debian Stable excludes most WebKit-based libraries from their update policy.
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/c...
So users of browsers like Midori and Epiphany or E-Mail-Clients like Evolution on Debian Stable, currently end up using a WebKit library that hasn't been updated in more than a year.
The same issue applies to Ubuntu and most of its derivatives as well. E.g. Ubuntu 14.04 users get a WebKitGTK+ library which hasn't been updated in almost a year.
http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/w/webkitgt...
Of course, the user doesn't get a warning dialog when he installs applications which rely on those outdated and insecure libraries.
Ubuntu users also shouldn't rely on packages from the Universe repository (which are by far the most packages), if they care about security. Those packages are community maintained and often don't get a single update in years. In the past they didn't even update Chromium reliably.
BTW, it is possible to check in Ubuntu which packages are supported or not: http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/xenial/man1/check-suppor...
How many times will this have to be repeated? Stable is for servers. If you're running webkit based libraries on your server you have other issues. For desktops, both Testing and Unstable are the valid options.
If you check the Debian web site you'll see stable is the only one which is offically supported and recommended by the project and there is no distinction for "server" or "desktop" use cases. Had stable was non-suitable as a desktop OS you can be sure Debian developers wouldn't bother releasing and supporting thousands of desktop/graphical packages with the stable release.
In the end stable, testing and unstable have all their pros and cons, strong and weak areas and some are more suitable for some use cases. That Debian stable is only for servers and it is not a good desktop OS is a myth that needs to die. Stable is a damn fine desktop OS. Everyone is free to use whatever they deemed best for their use but when you post blanket statements like "You. Are. Not. Supposed. To. Install. Debian. Stable. On. A. Desktop. Machine." and "Stable is for servers" on a public forum you are spreading misinformation and you should just stop.
Linux Desktop is not secure by default for the same reason Secure Linux does not offer the best desktop experience: more secure means less convenient. Desktop Linux aims at being convenient.
Also keep in mind, we are comparing a single Microsoft OS to a variety of Linux distros each with its own default. it would make more sense to compare all of those individually to see how they fit to a couple standard threat models. Then put them through a week of everyday use by a not knowing better user and see how much damage the different OS sustain.
/sarcasm
I think you mean a new distro which is mostly, but not entirely yet another a Ubuntu-derivative, which comes packaged with its own DE and related software.
And no, this new and perfect email-client will still not try to beat Outlook by managing both email and calendar at the same time. Go away!
Seriously... What are Linux Mint and ElementaryOS even thinking?
Basically this scenario comes to mind :
a) A power change occurs within a government. This power change facilitates the changing of laws.
b) A corporation with massive stores of information about individuals is within this government.
c) New government doesn't like X people because they aren't Y people. New government coerces corporation within legal boundaries to fess up data on X people.
d) New government does horrible things using list provided by and facilitated by corporation, through no direct fault of that corporation other than the happenstance of existing within a country with ever-changing laws and regulation.
It depends how deep your desire for annonimity is...
It all depends on your threat model and how wanted you are as a target.
[1]: https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/26/trump-signs-executive-or...
1 - (https://jezebel.com/5887363/creepy-cops-use-dmv-database-to-...
Russian hackers, past, present and future, routinely steal information and use it against the victim, whether we're talking about individuals or corporations. And I'm just talking about login credentials or credit card information, nevermind more personal data like phones or even intellectual property.
Microsoft hasn't done any of that, as far as I am aware.