17
Linux (In)security - Article arguing that Linux isn't as secure as people claim. Thoughts?
(madaidans-insecurities.github.io)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
The article is indeed one-sided and often makes exaggerated claims.
One example: "This is in contrast to a rolling release model, in which users can update as soon as the software is released, thereby acquiring all security fixes up to that point. "
This ignores that facts that new releases are the only source of new vulnerabilities.
Plus, new vulnerabilities are still to be reported. A 0-day in the wild is usually worse than a published vulnerability: at least you can learn about the latter and take decisions on how to handle it.
Also, security patches are usually patched and released earlier right on rolling release distros right? I know they are when its a critical vulnerability.
No. It depends on the distribution, but both Debian and paid distributions give maximum priority to patching vulnerabilities on stable/LTS releases. In various cases they are faster than the upstream developers.
They also ignore effort of some distributions to backport fixes to their supported version of the software as well as promoting the maintenance-mode or ESR releases of software.