Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.2K

Linux being secure is a common misconception in the security and privacy realm. Linux is thought to be secure primarily because of its source model, popular usage in servers, small userbase and confusion about its security features. This article is intended to debunk these misunderstandings by demonstrating the lack of various, important security mechanisms found in other desktop operating systems and identifying critical security problems within Linux's security model, across both user space and the kernel. Overall, other operating systems have a much stronger focus on security and have made many innovations in defensive security technologies, whereas Linux has fallen far behind.

Section 1 explains the lack of a proper application security model and demonstrates why some software that is commonly touted as solutions to this problem are insufficient. Section 2 examines and compares a number of important exploit mitigations. Section 3 presents a plethora of architectural security issues within the Linux kernel itself. Section 4 shows the ease at which an adversary can acquire root privileges and section 5 contains examples thereof. Section 6 details issues specific to "stable" release models, wherein software updates are frozen. Section 7 discusses the infeasibility of the average user correcting the aforementioned issues. Finally, section 8 provides links to what other security researchers have said about this topic.

Due to inevitable pedanticism, "Linux" in this article refers to a standard desktop Linux or GNU/Linux distribution.

Contents 1. Sandboxing 1.1 Flatpak 1.2 Firejail

  1. Exploit Mitigations 2.1 Arbitrary Code Guard and Code Integrity Guard 2.2 Control Flow Integrity 2.3 Automatic Variable Initialization 2.4 Virtualization-based Security

  2. Kernel

  3. The Nonexistent Boundary of Root

  4. Examples

  5. Distribution-specific Issues 6.1 Stable Release Models

  6. Manual Hardening

  7. Other Security Researcher Views on Linux

Linux being secure is a common misconception in the security and privacy realm. Linux is thought to be secure primarily because of its source model, popular usage in servers, small userbase and confusion about its security features. This article is intended to debunk these misunderstandings by demonstrating the lack of various, important security mechanisms found in other desktop operating systems and identifying critical security problems within Linux's security model, across both user space and the kernel. Overall, other operating systems have a much stronger focus on security and have made many innovations in defensive security technologies, whereas Linux has fallen far behind. Section 1 explains the lack of a proper application security model and demonstrates why some software that is commonly touted as solutions to this problem are insufficient. Section 2 examines and compares a number of important exploit mitigations. Section 3 presents a plethora of architectural security issues within the Linux kernel itself. Section 4 shows the ease at which an adversary can acquire root privileges and section 5 contains examples thereof. Section 6 details issues specific to "stable" release models, wherein software updates are frozen. Section 7 discusses the infeasibility of the average user correcting the aforementioned issues. Finally, section 8 provides links to what other security researchers have said about this topic. Due to inevitable pedanticism, "Linux" in this article refers to a standard desktop Linux or GNU/Linux distribution. Contents 1. Sandboxing 1.1 Flatpak 1.2 Firejail 2. Exploit Mitigations 2.1 Arbitrary Code Guard and Code Integrity Guard 2.2 Control Flow Integrity 2.3 Automatic Variable Initialization 2.4 Virtualization-based Security 3. Kernel 4. The Nonexistent Boundary of Root 5. Examples 6. Distribution-specific Issues 6.1 Stable Release Models 7. Manual Hardening 8. Other Security Researcher Views on Linux

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (7).
[–] • 1 pt (edited )

I think that the article has some merit. I don't know much about the other OSes, but from what I can tell what he writes about Linux seems to be correct. However, IMHO the biggest attack-surface of any IT solution always lies between the ears of it's users.

It is easier to write some piece of software and simply install it, than to do some advanced exploiting to get around even the simplest security mechanisms. And if you have stupid users, you can trick them to install it for you, sneak into their room when they're away and don't have to expect any protections at all, or just show your police-badge to some app-developer and ask them to sign an automatic update package, that installs your piece of code on their machine.

So maybe linux is more secure than the other OSes, because it's users are less stupid on average. To me this sounds very reasonable.

The dude linked to a tweet from a gal which I hold in high regard. She :

So, I'm reinforced in my belief that security of mainstream platforms (from Apple, Google, MS) will continue to improve, likely exceeding the "open source" offerings. But, the open source will still have an edge in: 1) trustworthiness/auditability 2) customization freedom

The #1 above might be a necessary condition to provide "enhanced" privacy and liberty. E.g. freedom to act not-inline with the Silicon Valley-accepted Western liberalism's value system. Admittedly this might not be of interest to majority of the persons out there.

[–] • 0 pt

It has merit if you're afraid of desktop operating systems. You shouldn't run Windows 10 because it comes with Powershell which may lead to security problems -if you're already fucked-. The same thing goes for linux, it's not a phone, so if someone gets in, they see everything.

If the article writer wants a phone as a desktop OS, there are plenty of ways of achieving that in linux. But in reality, he can go fuck himself.

[–] • 0 pt

Yeah. My thought was like "Okay, linux lacks mitigations that limit the damage untrusted code can do, but what idiot runs untrusted code?!"