I’m guessing, per the article, that as long as you’re not exposing telnet/ssh directly, you should be ok?
If you’re doing that already, why? I could see having some iot device that isn’t properly segmented from the rest of your lan already problematic, and something like this would be a concern.
I think it’s because the general public would expect a big company to come and fix it, like Microsoft. They feel safe because it’s a well known OS that everyone uses. So it can’t be unsafe, right? Right?
With Linux you’re fucked if you have no computer knowledge, like most people. That’s the general thinking.
Linux isn’t safer because it’s more secure, it’s safer because no one writing malware is going to target only 4% of the market when they could write malware for 60% of the market.
Yeah fair enough. I’d have to assume folks who spend time making malware want a return on their investment, whether financial or status / fame. Not a big ROI on hacking my gaming desktop or a thinkpad I use to stream movies.
But a much harder target, as servers will usually have someone at least semi-competent keeping them updated. Until rising costs and you know, the economy, force the ceo to choose between an IT department and a new boat.
I’m guessing, per the article, that as long as you’re not exposing telnet/ssh directly, you should be ok? If you’re doing that already, why? I could see having some iot device that isn’t properly segmented from the rest of your lan already problematic, and something like this would be a concern.
I shouldn’t be on Linux, I don’t know anything about computers. This is why Windows is the safer bet.
Whenever linux has a big sercurity issue, its a big deal. whenever windows has a big security issue, its just another tuesday.
That should tell you that windows systems are targeted much more.
I think it’s because the general public would expect a big company to come and fix it, like Microsoft. They feel safe because it’s a well known OS that everyone uses. So it can’t be unsafe, right? Right?
With Linux you’re fucked if you have no computer knowledge, like most people. That’s the general thinking.
I dont think a non-tech savvy person would be fucked, I think it would deffenatly be harder to use but UX in linux has been getting steadily better.
True, but that’s the point.
Linux isn’t safer because it’s more secure, it’s safer because no one writing malware is going to target only 4% of the market when they could write malware for 60% of the market.
Maybe 4% desktop market share. You are not including Linux market share of servers; this would be a more worthwhile target.
Those servers are also sitting in and/or behind DMZs specifically configured with network based intrusion prevention systems to protect them.
So while more valuable, they’re also better protected because network security is a thing.
Yeah fair enough. I’d have to assume folks who spend time making malware want a return on their investment, whether financial or status / fame. Not a big ROI on hacking my gaming desktop or a thinkpad I use to stream movies.
But a much harder target, as servers will usually have someone at least semi-competent keeping them updated. Until rising costs and you know, the economy, force the ceo to choose between an IT department and a new boat.
By Jehovah you can’t say that on Lemmy!