this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
94 points (94.3% liked)

Linux

58164 readers
499 users here now

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.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hi there,

Win10 is soon not supported. Tbh Linux have been on my radar since I started to break from the US big tech.

But how is security handled in Linux? Linux is pretty open-source, or am I not understanding it correctly. So how can I as a new user make sure to have the most secure machine as possible?

(page 2) 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bykdd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 23 hours ago

what i did after install mint, enable firewall, disable vnc, ssh ,rdp ports. install opensnitch, install pihole

[–] johannes@lemmy.jhjacobs.nl 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

As others have said, Linux Security is a very broad topic. But the main thing is keeping your system updated, only install packages from your distro’s repositories, install a firewall and don’t install anything you don’t need should go a long way :)

For example, i use Alpine Linux as a desktop OS. This means i only install packages through apk, from the Alpine repositories. I run apk update and apk upgrade commands every friday. I use Flathub for most desktop software which i also update weekly. (To be even more secure, only install verified flatpak’s). my firewall has no incoming ports open (really not needed on my desktop). And i keep myself updated with the latest news regarding Alpine Linux, and Linux in general. So i am aware of most vulnerabilities as they are published. This is a pretty secure system.

Later on if you want even more security you can start following the CIS guidelines for your favorite distro, but the above should be a good start.

But good security is not just jeeping your system updated, it also means you have good backups in place, in case randsomware hits your system. And then there’s also the monitoring of your system for suspicious behaviour :) But these are far more advanced topics!

[–] the16bitgamer@programming.dev -3 points 18 hours ago (6 children)

From a windows perspective Linux does 2 things differently which makes it more secure to Windows.

  1. Like MacOS it doesn’t need antivirus software like Norton. Windows needs antivirus because DOS the OS windows is based on, had it where any program had access to anything. This is still sadly true even on Windows 11. Linux is Sandboxed, where instead of giving the program full access to everything, you just give it a sandbox with what it needs.

Unless you deliberately run a program as the admin of Linux (su or sudo), malicious code can just delete system32.

  1. Linux’s is open source and while the desktop market share is tiny, there are a massive market in servers. As a result since there are a lot of eyes on the project if/when problems are found they are fixed quickly. I remember a time when a malicious actor was trying to add a backdoor into a library as a blob and it was caught.

Windows on the other hand is closed source, meaning if MS can’t find the issue, the only time it is found is when it’s in the field. To avoid downtime MS offers bug bounty programs for those who can find issues, rather than to let them exploit it.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] sunoc@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Great to hear you're willing to move to Linux!

Like other comments pointed, there is no such thing as "most secure". It's a deep rabbit hole and it's better in general to assume that any device connected to the internet is at risk. Hell, any storage can be compromised if the entity interested put enough effort into it.

I recommande reading the page on Privacy Guides, it gives a good overview. In general, you should consider your thread model: what is you situation and why do you want security or privacy for?

  • Regarding security, I would say for a general case, any modern, popular Linux distro with full disk encryption is probably good enough and as secure as any other OS. I would recommande going with a Fedora Silverblue or an OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, but the more popular Ubuntu or Mint are great as well for new users.
  • If you also want "good enough" privacy, you should focus more on the software you are running, and the situation of your data, especially in your usage of your web browser. But that's a different topic entirely.
  • If you actually want more advanced security though, that's where it becomes difficult/fun. You need to consider what you are trying to protect yourself from, specifically. Virus? Maybe a compartmentized OS like Qubes might be a solution. Physical access to your device? You can get a dead man switch that kills you system disk if your laptop is taken away from you. You want to hide your OS install from a security inspection? You can set a deniable full disk encryption with a facade OS that protect your from a rubber hose attack. Probably many other things exist I am not aware of.

But anyway, if your question is "Is a Linux distro at least as secure as my previous Windows", the answer is definitely YES imo. And if you want MOAR, it's gonna be a fun ride!

[edit: and yes, updates! Update you system plz.]

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 4 points 1 day ago

Most of the security is in the kernel so you can make sure you have the latest kernel. Also secureblue is a security focused distro that makes use of GrapeneOS's hardened malloc so that's the most secure one that I'm aware of.

[–] Auster@thebrainbin.org 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

One of the tips I'd give is the same for Windows, the best anti-virus is the user to know what he/she is doing. Linux is a better in that regard because it obfuscates very little, unlike Windows.

Also in line with viruses, given how many variants of a base system there can be, unless the virus is compiled in your machine, to my knowledge chances are higher for a virus to fail to function properly, or even at all. A way for a coder to circumvent it would be to bloat the code with system-specific instructions, which would be harder to create and optimize, but if a big enough group in resources take on the challenge, it could potentially be achieved.

On another point, something I expect to become a problem in Linux is that you need the admin's password, which is pretty much the master key of the system, for way too many things, even to install a web browser or the equivalent of 7-Zip. With scams usually involving social engineering, having the user hand a key from a system that depends mainly on it makes the system far more vulnerable.

Now, given Windows is still the bigger desktop system, scammers and virus distribution still focus on it, but as Linux grows, more ill-intended people may focus on it.

But still, Windows has far less variants, barely anything there uses passwords or more adninistration-oriented safelocks, and is much worse for troubleshooting (and having used most systems from 98FE onward, I also think it's getting worse), so I'd say Linux still has the advantages in those points I could think of.

[–] Aelyra@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

Also in line with viruses, given how many variants of a base system there can be, unless the virus is compiled in your machine, to my knowledge chances are higher for a virus to fail to function properly, or even at all.

Cross-platform malware does exist, and one of the most common and practical forms is malicious browser extensions. A harmful Chrome or Firefox add-on can function just as effectively on Linux as it does on Windows.

On another point, something I expect to become a problem in Linux is that you need the admin’s password, which is pretty much the master key of the system, for way too many things, even to install a web browser or the equivalent of 7-Zip. With scams usually involving social engineering, having the user hand a key from a system that depends mainly on it makes the system far more vulnerable.

Multiple types of dangerous malware can run on Linux without requiring root privileges. As previously mentioned, malicious browser extensions pose a significant threat. Harmful actions like deleting files or logging keystrokes can also be carried out using a Python script that doesn't need root access.

Linux is undoubtedly more secure than Windows for a variety of reasons, but Linux users should still remain cautious. No system is completely invulnerable.

[–] tfm@piefed.europe.pub 4 points 1 day ago
[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What do you mean most secure? Because that is a very broad thing.

[–] UheldigeBenny@feddit.dk 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Since I was referring to win10 losing support I thought it was understood that I asked about security updates like windows does. Pardon me. But to specify, how is the ongoing security updates working on Linux? Who does it? Is it even being done? It is an assumption on my side that the security is done in the same manner like win and mac, with continuous updates but that might as well be a wrong assumption.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It depends on how you installed it.

If you installed something via apt on a Debian based system then Debian will track the projects and push updates when the are available. If you are doing things with Snap or Flatpack then the developers of those specific applications will have some form of update plan.

[–] UheldigeBenny@feddit.dk 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Ah okay.. I am kinda new in the lingo so sorry if I butcher some of it.

So it is the developers of the distros who are pushing updates?

I know you can never trust companies like Microsoft, but they are a bit more regulated by laws as they are big corps.. How can you trust a distro enough to e.g. use online banking ?

[–] jutty@blendit.bsd.cafe 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think the ethos of open source flips this thinking. You should not trust. Microsoft may not be noting down your banking details, but you actually don't and can't know if it is. What it is doing is storing other personal data, because that is in its policies. Now, to what extent it takes advantage of this capability and permission, it is again unknown and unknowable.

Microsoft may be a big corp, but some distros are the backbone of highly critical systems, and collectively they run the vast majority of servers.

You don't "trust" your distro. Or your laws. Everything being done is in the open, so you can see for yourself. If you lack the knowledge to do that, there are others who are doing it and many are sharing what they find. You will "trust" on some level, because of its reputation, how established it is, but trust here means something very different from letting a huge blob of unknown code do whatever it does because I trust you.

[–] UheldigeBenny@feddit.dk 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This is actually what I am a bit afraid of. Im danish and Denmark is becoming way to digital in the sense where we use digital ID to access banking and other systems which needs you to be identified (tax, healthcare etc).

The open source stuff is a bit daunting when you actually don't know shit like me.

But as you say, Microsoft might not be better.

[–] Wfh@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Honestly, Microsoft is one of the most active participants in the shitty fascist dystopian surveillance shitshow in the us right now. It's not that it "might not be better", they are literally one of the worst.

Open source doesn't work on trust, it works on scrutiny. Which is much easier to do when everything is open and therefore auditable. The threat model is very different, and the mitigation process is much faster since thousands of companies, including the biggest ones, need a secure Linux to run all their servers.

Open source software security issues comme mainly from :

  • plain old bugs like everything else
  • supply chain attacks (Example), which are actually very difficult to pull off since they tend to actually fail because of said scrutiny

What open source software won't do because doing so would immediately kill a project:

  • deliberate backdoors "for law enforcement" like most commercial platforms
  • invasive telemetry/spyware
  • Microsoft Recall that literally records and stores indefinitely absolutely every single interaction you have with your computer
  • basically everything that's deliberately harmful to privacy and/or security
  • enshittification to maximize profit since there is basically no financial incentive and no venture capitalist behind distros
[–] Aelyra@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

If you're trying to avoid forced telemetry and similar tracking, you're generally safer with most of the big Linux distros. Most of them don’t collect data at all, and if they do, it’s usually easy to opt out with just a click.

Going for lesser-known distros does increase your risk a bit, but the fact that they’re open source helps deter some bad actors, since the code can be inspected by others.

And if you're worried about super-sophisticated backdoors, keep in mind you’re not exactly safe with Microsoft either. A rogue employee could still cause harm, and because it's closed source, any malicious changes might take way longer to catch.

[–] rollmagma@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

That's an interesting question. It's pretty nuanced. I don't know of any laws that would stop Microsoft from going "oops, we had a bug in our software, sorry about that". Same for the linux distros. Unless you're a corporate customer, then that would be included as part of some contract. So at the end of the day you trust Microsoft's reputation. You'd trust your distro of choice as well. So as a thought experiment I would suggest that the most secure operating system provider is the one that ships a very similar version of its OS to both end-users and enterprise customers. Some Linux distributions fall into that category, some definitely not.

Also, keep in mind that some distros are run mostly by individual contributors not employed by any knowingly reputable company, so I'd stay away from those by default.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Windows has a lot of shit to second guess the user. Linux doesn’t. Linux doesn’t babysit you. It has some guardrails but the general idea with Linux is it’s your computer, it will do what you tell it do, even if it’s a bad idea. This makes things lighter, faster, more private, but it has also led to security incidents.

Windows and Mac will watch what you are doing. If they see something suspicious, the security software can jump in and telemetry means they can notice patterns as new malware appears on their users machines. This makes the machines slower and heavier and less private, but also easier for users to deal with because they doesn’t have to actually know anything. They can just buy their way out of a problem with superdupertotallaylegitantivirus2025pro.

Anyone who says Linux doesn’t get viruses is lying to you. It does. They all do. But it’s not that common because Linux is a smaller market share so most nefarious people won’t waste their time on a smaller target unless there is something that specific target has they want. So old people using fedora kinoite to access email and facebook are fine, but Pete Hegseth watching ignoring security practices and visiting shady sites is probably a worthwhile target and could be vulnerable.

Linux has major advantageous over the industry approach of “we know best” but it also has disadvantageous. If you are the kind of person who wants to learn and improve and grow, Linux could work for you. If you are more the irresponsible buy-someone-else’s-solution-to-my-problems type, it’s not.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're going to need to be more specific. There are dozens of aspects of security.

But if you want to have the most secure machine, then never turn it on, encase it in lead, and drop it at the bottom of the ocean.

[–] UheldigeBenny@feddit.dk 1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Since I was referring to win10 losing support I thought it was understood that I asked about security updates like windows does. But to specify, how is the ongoing security updates working on Linux? Who does it? Is it even being done? It is an assumption on my side that the security is done in the same manner like win and mac, with continuous updates but that might as well be a wrong assumption.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Security updates are provided by each package maintainer and released on their own schedule. Microsoft releases updates monthly on Patch Tuesday, unless there's a severe vulnerability that can't wait. But since Linux is a bunch of different packages rolled into a distro, there's no one authority managing updates.

So, this means you might get them faster, or if a maintainer is not engaged, slower. Or, if a package is abandoned, not at all. Distros generally make sure their provided packages are maintained, but updates to third-party packages are not guaranteed.

[–] Aelyra@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

It’s kind of like Windows. You just hit that shiny "Update" button and boom, your software’s up to date and more secure. Depending on your Linux distro and setup, you might not even need to reboot, which is pretty cool.

Under the hood, most distros don’t really separate security updates from regular ones for everyday apps like your browser. They just roll them all together. But for the kernel, the super deep-core part of the system, sometimes you get security fixes without any new features. That helps keep things stable and safe.

[–] relativestranger@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

it's similar. in a mainstream distribution with a desktop environment, updates can typically be configured to notify you or install automatically. it's common for those updates to now also include third-party sources like flathub.

upgrades (to a next point release or major version) are different, some can be fairly straightforward--others, not so much. and those upgrades will be more frequent, as the "lifecycle" for most linux distributions is shorter than windows' 10 years.

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago

There are also rolling release distros that never need upgrades. You install the system once and normal updates are all it needs.

[–] transscribe7891@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I used to use ClamAV, but not sure I noticed much of a difference, so haven't really used any antivirus software for a while now. Curious what people in this thread think of clam.

[–] Nilz@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

ClamAV looks for signatures of known viruses, most of which target Windows and not Linux. So it's debatable how much more secure you really are by running ClamAV

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›