Why did linuxcucks lieded?

Why do you have such a poor understanding of the English language?
How are linux users supposed to stop anyone from writing malware? The idea is that because you can read the source code you can audit it and find shit like this.
Take your retard pills OP.

>>59288410
LINUXTARD ON TRIGGER

>>59288410
But how are you going to protect yourself, if you have no antimalware? Windows is more secure that is.
QED Ipso Facto Ergo

>>59288466
I hope you are le troleing
anon I think you know anti-malware companies fix stuff the same way?
Someone finds an exploit and they fix it because microsoft is such a cuck company

>>59288572
But if there linux malware how are you going to fix it if nobody runs an antimalware?

>>59288591
(automatic) updates

>>59288591
Not the previous anon but How old are u

File: 55qVujU.gif (512KB, 352x250px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 352x250px

>>59288410
>The idea is that because you can read the source code you can audit it and find shit like this.
Well, can you? I'd love to see you try, freetard.

>>59288624
The previous anon, and do you run antimalware on linux? No? The shut it.

>>59288656
Most of those illiterate linuxcucks don't even know OpenSSH on the default install has backdoors if you are not careful with its setup.

They are desperate sperglords.

A windows power user runs a more secure machine that their's anytime.

>rumours of backdoors on OpenBSD
>developers conduct a complete and thorough audit of their entire codebase

>rumours of backdoors on Linux
>shrugs of "lol nonsense it's opensores we'd have known XDDDDDDDD"

Really makes you think.

>>59288618
but the malware has hijacked your apt-get and now it spies you.
you are fucked.

>>59288380
The difference is that we can know that the Linux systems are patched because we're able to look at the source.

>>59288843
> I can look at the code of 1,000,000,000,000,000 lines

Tell us, what did you discover from today's news?

Did you find the backdoor that is vaguely references?

No? Too bad. Keep looking.

>>59288678
OK,let me educate u kiddo,the Linux community heavily relies on its massive user base to find vulnerabilities in the system.The talented users(it could be anyone with proper knowledge of cybersec) then make patches for the vulnerability and share their work with other normies via updates(if they want to).Thus,if u r an advanced user and u know what u r doing,u could easily avoid all vulnerabilities by which CIA can spy on u.However this requires a bit of knowledge,and thus is not recommended for ur average windows users cuz let's be honest,a lot of them are retards and giving Linux in their hands would be like giving a machine gun to a chimp.

And BTW,Ur so called anti malware companies don't fully prevent cia's interference on windows too.Its just that u feel a false sense of safety having installed an anti malware software when u don't even know what's working behind the scenes.Linux do/should know what's working behind the scenes by reading the source code.

>>59289169
> easy, I can read 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 lines of code
no
open source is by definition more insecure than closed source that you trust the provider of.

the only reason open source is trusted more is that you don't trust the provider.

both are dangerous. full stop.

this leak further proves it.

>>59289300
Like I said,it isn't necessarily one person who has to review all the code.Also,u'd be retarded to check all the code when there are only certain instances in the code that can lead to an exploitable vulnerability.The people reviewing the code are therefore expected to have knowledge about the code beforhand and should know where to look for a vulnerability to patch.

>>59289300
What is code changelog on git.

Fucking winblow kiddos

if all the OSes on the market are cucked, bluepilled, and compromised, why doesn't /g/ just make its own OS?

>>59289606
have fun porting every single piece of software you need

>>59289411
>>59289456
>we assure you, we have checked the code, it is 100% secure with no backdoors
the op itself says otherwise you retarded shits

File: puflogv500X325.gif (19KB, 500x325px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x325px

>>59289606
Because there already is a based OS, anon.

>>59289659
> 2 remote backdoors
dropped

It's great to see lincucks in defensive mode. Pathetic losers, get fucked.

>>59289649
linux is a blanket term
there are many distros of linux
not all distros of linux are made equal

you can make changes, all i ask is that you (((give me back the source code)))

(((give it back)))

>>59288380
>>59288380
>solaris
is there any solaris left? I tried openindiana and it was horrible

>>59289705
Everything Unix-based is horrible, anon.

Operating system experts like David Cutler and Gary Kildall agree.

>>59288717
and then
>systemd which is so big no one can feasibly audit it making it ripe for exploits

>>59288707
Care to explain in detail or do you have some links?
Don't want to be a desperate sperglord anymore.

>>59289744
http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/

>>59288843
Except that does nothing to protect you so what's the point?

The many eyes theory has been btfo in recent years

Open source is no problem for 3 letter agencies, nor is encryption apparently so the question is why anyone would suffer the often subpar software when there is no benefit

le world is le ending

>>59289456
Yea, that sure stopped cia...oh wait

File: b688517a4b8ac14961df83cc53a440b316f4a66c5f41b2a8a595bc5e5243394b.png (357KB, 701x720px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 701x720px

>>59289764
>Don't want to be a desperate sperglord anymore.
Seeing this on /g/.
He have no proof. Deal with it.

>>59289649
Wtf are u even talking about anon?

>>59288380

Install Minix...

>>59289803
Not him but from what i understand he means that these leaks proves that even with all these alleged competent people going through the open source code, the cia still had no problem making exploits that were unknown until today

>>59289798
Here's the thing bro,no one can stop CIA just like no one can stop any other experienced hacker.U can only learn about cybersec and protect urself.And with time they'll get better and u should too.

>>59289838
>>59289649


>>59289862

>>59289862
I get that. I'm just protesting the idea that open source is secure because many eyes will find the exploits when these leaks clearly show it doesn't work like that

>>59289606
I will make the Logo

>>59289300
How you fix somthing if you cant even see whats inside?
Thats the whole problem with closed code.
Some devs are fucking retarded and they put intentional backdoors to remote maintain their costumers machines and then 5 years later no one remembers that your buged product still makes his rounds out there were some kiddo can put http://192.168.1.10/secretadmin?123 and gain full control of 1000 cameras
Thats how botnets happen to exist a buch o sloppy programers that never gave their source code to the next generation and now you have an army of toasters runing a ddos attack on you favorite web server.
Can the same happen to open source code? yes sure no one will deny it but at least you can ask your 18 year old son to obtain the lastest update from a github repo maintained and fixes by the comuniti. Try to do the same with closed source, the manufacturer will just ignore you or he is out of buissnes.

>>59290261
The backdoors are generally not intended though, they're logic errors that lead to code execution.
Open source or closed doesn't matter in this case

>>59288843
Most of the shit gets waved through because the person submitting the code is "trusted". No-one knows what the fuck is floating around in the kernel.

>>59289659
CIA has to get it to work before they write malware for it.

>>59289951
Its more secure than the proprietary Windows model. Fact.

>>59290261
>How you fix somthing if you cant even see whats inside?
How many people do you know who are even qualified to audit Linux code? You're sure there's someone out there, right? But are they willing to put in the effort?

>>59290635
>Its more secure than the proprietary Windows model. Fact.
As far as you know. Are you a security expert?

>>59290261
The problem with this line of thinking is that it doesn't automatically support open source actually. That's a huge leap in logic.

Basically, both systems are inherently flawed because humans are fucked right up.

>>59289778
Both are dangerous paradigms. Open source is by definition more dangerous than closed source *IF* you trust the closed source maker simply because you expose *EVERYTHING* to everyone with opensource. Since we do *NOT* trust the closed source maker, that's the only advantage of Open Source.

Truth is, the most secure systems in the world aren't because of the OS, they are become of the OS admin.

Give a smart person a Windows 10 and he will be 800% more secure than an idiot on booboontoo.