Debian_SuperUser
Active Member
It's been I think over an year since I have been fully using GNU/Linux. But even till this date I don't understand the security part of it.
The major reason of me hating Windows is it's performance. And that includes Microsoft Windows Defender or any other Anti-malware software that you would be running. If you disable Defender and not have any other Anti-malware software running, Windows actually becomes much more usable for me.
This doesn't seem fair when I state that GNU/Linux is better in terms of performance, as I do not have any Anti-malware software running. But I wanna know, why?
The main reason I found by searching for it is that GNU/Linux has very little market share and just isn't the target for attackers, and GNU/Linux users are going to be at least somewhat knowledgeable in computers and wise so they are less likely to fall for it. But in my opinion,
a) What about browser related attacks such as cookie stealing? Browsers can be cross platform.
b) Some other cross platform ways or writing the malicious code for cross platform so that it could target GNU/Linux users as well.
c) GNU/Linux is used widely on servers, and so attacks for them could also affect us (that's why critical servers do have Anti-malware service running). For example, backdoor in operating system itself, though that is something very looked out for, but it could happen.
d) Directly targeting a GNU/Linux system, as the GNU/Linux market share rises.
You know what? Keep all of this aside. First somebody explain this to me. Why is the range of sudo so large? Why is it that sudo is required for a program to write something in the root's folder, to install a necessary package system wide, sometimes a necessary to properly launch (those programs are bad), or to read some information such as from hardware, and that at the moment the root access is granted, it has the ability to wipe or encrypt my entire drive? No, I actually don't understand this, and don't know how I haven't been affected and didn't get my drive wiped till now. This makes so no sense that it feels like I am missing something.
So as a conclusion from my understanding, you do need a security software on GNU/Linux, but you are as okay without it as I have been okay all these years with even Defender disabled on my other system running Windows and my parents have been using it, and now recently that I think about it, I am definitely gonna change that and enable Defender, even if it comes to my laptop screaming with it's fan and slowing down, but my parents don't care, but I will have some setting or a dual boot when I need to use it (I just can't use Windows in that state). Basically you aren't full proof on Linux without a security software, are you?
The major reason of me hating Windows is it's performance. And that includes Microsoft Windows Defender or any other Anti-malware software that you would be running. If you disable Defender and not have any other Anti-malware software running, Windows actually becomes much more usable for me.
This doesn't seem fair when I state that GNU/Linux is better in terms of performance, as I do not have any Anti-malware software running. But I wanna know, why?
The main reason I found by searching for it is that GNU/Linux has very little market share and just isn't the target for attackers, and GNU/Linux users are going to be at least somewhat knowledgeable in computers and wise so they are less likely to fall for it. But in my opinion,
a) What about browser related attacks such as cookie stealing? Browsers can be cross platform.
b) Some other cross platform ways or writing the malicious code for cross platform so that it could target GNU/Linux users as well.
c) GNU/Linux is used widely on servers, and so attacks for them could also affect us (that's why critical servers do have Anti-malware service running). For example, backdoor in operating system itself, though that is something very looked out for, but it could happen.
d) Directly targeting a GNU/Linux system, as the GNU/Linux market share rises.
You know what? Keep all of this aside. First somebody explain this to me. Why is the range of sudo so large? Why is it that sudo is required for a program to write something in the root's folder, to install a necessary package system wide, sometimes a necessary to properly launch (those programs are bad), or to read some information such as from hardware, and that at the moment the root access is granted, it has the ability to wipe or encrypt my entire drive? No, I actually don't understand this, and don't know how I haven't been affected and didn't get my drive wiped till now. This makes so no sense that it feels like I am missing something.
So as a conclusion from my understanding, you do need a security software on GNU/Linux, but you are as okay without it as I have been okay all these years with even Defender disabled on my other system running Windows and my parents have been using it, and now recently that I think about it, I am definitely gonna change that and enable Defender, even if it comes to my laptop screaming with it's fan and slowing down, but my parents don't care, but I will have some setting or a dual boot when I need to use it (I just can't use Windows in that state). Basically you aren't full proof on Linux without a security software, are you?
