Linux distro security

>>59317641
Anything with systemD(emons) is compromised. Mark my words.

>>59317641
>Is Ubuntu really a joke in term of security?
No, that's Mint.
>Is Debian Testing the way to go? Is it safe/stable enough?
Nope.

>>59317641
>Is Ubuntu really a joke in term of security?
it's a joke in general.

>Is Debian Testing the way to go? Is it safe/stable enough?
depends on what you do/need. debian testing is, by definition, not stable.

>>59317641
>Is Ubuntu really a joke in term of security?
No.

>Is Debian Testing the way to go?
If you want, sure, go right ahead.

>Is it safe/stable enough?
Yes.

>>59317641
Debian Testing is more stable than a *buntu or Fedora, it's Sid / Debian Unstable which you shouldn't use as your daily driver.
Note that Debian Testing is actually in a freeze phase, so it'll become the new stable in a few months.

>>59317726
>depends on what you do/need. debian testing is, by definition, not stable.
Testing is good if you need newer software, like a bunch of KDE apps you can't just compile from source because they depend on newer environment and so on. Much easier to just get a newer distro like Testing.

>>59318085
if you actually need it (unlike 99% of the shitposts here claiming they need it) and it's just some packages use backports
but yeah, testing is fine if you are ok with occasionally fixing some stuff after an update

Just stop. It's fighting a lost battle. If you have internet there isn't a 100% you aren't being watched.

>>59317641
>Is Ubuntu really a joke in term of security?
No, as incredible as it sounds Ubuntu is actually far better at security than Debian. It implements a MAC (AppArmor) while Debian doesn't. It comes by default with a lot of security features Debian doesn't: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features

Personally, I would avoid Debian completely. I don't know the reason, but they just don't take security seriously.

Debian Unstable is more stable than most distributions' "stable" branch.

File: file.png (192KB, 1253x1107px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1253x1107px

>>59317726
>debian testing is, by definition, not stable.
You are a moronic shit. Debian unstable is more stable that most shitty distributions out there. Imbeciles can't comprehend the scale of debian.

It's not a shitfest of a couple of sperglords that can't be arsed to even make an actual distro (arch for instance), they are a fucking conglomerate.

Pic fucking related.

>>59318795
The story of Richard Huckle shows they can't do shit with the hoarded data.
We talk about government anyway.

>>59317641
Are you asking from "default" stand-point? Cause if you don't want to even try setup anything, you have no right to talk about security.

>>59317726
I'm pretty sure Debian Testing receives more testing than the stable branch of Fedora and Ubuntu's 6 month releases. It's a testing release for what is essentially Debian's Long Term Support releases (Stable).

>>59321272
And unstable is almost identical to testing anyway. Basically the best linux distro is unstable debian (or testing). The best server distro is stable debian unless you need a latest version server (very rare) in which case testing or rather a backport.

Yeah, even if you do run stable, the backports are enormous repositories.

People don't comprehend the scale of debian compared to baby distros.

>>59317641
If your ISP knows you're torrenting the Hanna Montana discography, the NSA probably figured it out too.

>>59321379
and don't give a shit

>>59317641
all linux distributions are unsafe after install you need to learn linux in order to secure it properly

>>59317641
> Is Debian Testing the way to go? Is it safe/stable enough?
Just recently it's been discovered ntfs-3g could be used for a privilege escalation on Debian 9. I think the most secure Debian is oldstable, because all bugs are already patched and the only reason why it's updated because somebody have discovered a new vulnerability in any version of a software.

install hardened gentoo with grsecurity.

>>59322363
not good enough

File: 1462643226460.jpg (270KB, 1037x778px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1037x778px

>>59317641
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

All GNUmale/Lincuck are pwned by the CIA. Just use Windows a this point.

Debian stable user here. Yeah the software is old as fuck but it's surprisingly easy to get used to this.
The debian team backports all security patches, and if you need something new (but you usually don't) you can compile from source.
And it IS stable and predictable: not having to fix my os after every update means i have more time to dedicate to programming, which is perfect.
If you want to stay secure (and if openbsd is not an option) then i think debian stable is the way to go.
Also remember that chromium and firefox still get regular updates.

>>59322590
so basically 3 choices

a. eat shit
b. eat more shit
c. go outside and meet a women

>>59322590
This.

Linuxtrash at 6x more time consuming.

Which Linux distributions take security seriously? Which distro takes it the most seriously?

>>59323105
Alpine Linux?

>>59321040
This.Debian is STABLE, it's shit security wise.

>>59323142
are you stupid

When I switched to linux years ago I was pretty paranoid about viruses and malware, having come from windows.
Used to google all the cve warnings and shit:
Scenario 1: only effects 3 year old kernel
Scenario 2: patched last tuesday
Scenario 3: a windows exploit results in a 100,000 strong windows botnet that can knock a linux server offline...gets listed as effecting windows AND linux.
EVERY
FUCKING
TIME.

>>59317970
>it's Sid / Debian Unstable which you shouldn't use as your daily driver.
Two years here with nothing blowing up. Just be wary when apt goes full retard and wants to get rid of xorg with an upgrade.

>>59323159
thanks, me too

>>59317641
Any opinions regarding apparmor and selinux?

>>59323676
SELinux was created by the NSA, you'd have to be a naive tard to use it. AppArmor is superior.