this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
84 points (70.2% liked)

Technology

59311 readers
6242 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheOSINTguy@sh.itjust.works 21 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] themurphy@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TheOSINTguy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Sanguine@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Maybe 4% desktop market share. You are not including Linux market share of servers; this would be a more worthwhile target.

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Sanguine@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] Evil_incarnate@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

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.