Linux is currently failing at desktop security.
The reality is uncomfortable:
1. The "Sandbox" is nonexistent.
On macOS or ChromeOS, apps have to ask permission to read files. On standard Desktop Linux? A malicious calculator app or a compromised PDF viewer has immediate, total access to your entire home directory. It can grab your SSH keys, browser cookies, and documents without asking.
2. "sudo" is security theater.
If an attacker compromises your user account, they don't need root to own you. They can simply alias sudo in your shell configuration to intercept your password, or use X11 to log your keystrokes. The boundary between "User" and "Root" is porous.
3. The Kernel is behind.
While Windows has spent years implementing aggressive exploit mitigations (CFG, VBS, CET), the Linux kernel remains a massive, monolithic block of memory-unsafe C code with a huge attack surface and significantly fewer modern defenses.
4. Server vs. Desktop.
"But the internet runs on Linux!" Yes, on stripped-down, single-purpose servers managed by pros. That is a completely different threat model than a general-purpose desktop running a GUI, media stacks, fonts, and random user-installed apps.
PLS pour les Jean-Linux
The reality is uncomfortable:
1. The "Sandbox" is nonexistent.
On macOS or ChromeOS, apps have to ask permission to read files. On standard Desktop Linux? A malicious calculator app or a compromised PDF viewer has immediate, total access to your entire home directory. It can grab your SSH keys, browser cookies, and documents without asking.
2. "sudo" is security theater.
If an attacker compromises your user account, they don't need root to own you. They can simply alias sudo in your shell configuration to intercept your password, or use X11 to log your keystrokes. The boundary between "User" and "Root" is porous.
3. The Kernel is behind.
While Windows has spent years implementing aggressive exploit mitigations (CFG, VBS, CET), the Linux kernel remains a massive, monolithic block of memory-unsafe C code with a huge attack surface and significantly fewer modern defenses.
4. Server vs. Desktop.
"But the internet runs on Linux!" Yes, on stripped-down, single-purpose servers managed by pros. That is a completely different threat model than a general-purpose desktop running a GUI, media stacks, fonts, and random user-installed apps.
PLS pour les Jean-Linux
https://x.com/iAnonymous3000/status/1996400615191200047
Linux is currently failing at desktop security.
The reality is uncomfortable:
1. The "Sandbox" is nonexistent.
On macOS or ChromeOS, apps have to ask permission to read files. On standard Desktop Linux? A malicious calculator app or a compromised PDF viewer has immediate, total access to your entire home directory. It can grab your SSH keys, browser cookies, and documents without asking.
2. "sudo" is security theater.
If an attacker compromises your user account, they don't need root to own you. They can simply alias sudo in your shell configuration to intercept your password, or use X11 to log your keystrokes. The boundary between "User" and "Root" is porous.
3. The Kernel is behind.
While Windows has spent years implementing aggressive exploit mitigations (CFG, VBS, CET), the Linux kernel remains a massive, monolithic block of memory-unsafe C code with a huge attack surface and significantly fewer modern defenses.
4. Server vs. Desktop.
"But the internet runs on Linux!" Yes, on stripped-down, single-purpose servers managed by pros. That is a completely different threat model than a general-purpose desktop running a GUI, media stacks, fonts, and random user-installed apps.
PLS pour les Jean-Linux
The reality is uncomfortable:
1. The "Sandbox" is nonexistent.
On macOS or ChromeOS, apps have to ask permission to read files. On standard Desktop Linux? A malicious calculator app or a compromised PDF viewer has immediate, total access to your entire home directory. It can grab your SSH keys, browser cookies, and documents without asking.
2. "sudo" is security theater.
If an attacker compromises your user account, they don't need root to own you. They can simply alias sudo in your shell configuration to intercept your password, or use X11 to log your keystrokes. The boundary between "User" and "Root" is porous.
3. The Kernel is behind.
While Windows has spent years implementing aggressive exploit mitigations (CFG, VBS, CET), the Linux kernel remains a massive, monolithic block of memory-unsafe C code with a huge attack surface and significantly fewer modern defenses.
4. Server vs. Desktop.
"But the internet runs on Linux!" Yes, on stripped-down, single-purpose servers managed by pros. That is a completely different threat model than a general-purpose desktop running a GUI, media stacks, fonts, and random user-installed apps.
PLS pour les Jean-Linux
https://x.com/iAnonymous3000/status/1996400615191200047
Je pensais que tu étais un Jean Linux
L'op qui va perdre 80% des foromeurs d'entrée de jeu parce qu'il a pas traduit le texte
zéro virus contrairement à windaube
No Nut : 5ème régiment, matricule R5-05
Linux is currently failing at desktop security.
The reality is uncomfortable:
1. The "Sandbox" is nonexistent.
On macOS or ChromeOS, apps have to ask permission to read files. On standard Desktop Linux? A malicious calculator app or a compromised PDF viewer has immediate, total access to your entire home directory. It can grab your SSH keys, browser cookies, and documents without asking.
2. "sudo" is security theater.
If an attacker compromises your user account, they don't need root to own you. They can simply alias sudo in your shell configuration to intercept your password, or use X11 to log your keystrokes. The boundary between "User" and "Root" is porous.
3. The Kernel is behind.
While Windows has spent years implementing aggressive exploit mitigations (CFG, VBS, CET), the Linux kernel remains a massive, monolithic block of memory-unsafe C code with a huge attack surface and significantly fewer modern defenses.
4. Server vs. Desktop.
"But the internet runs on Linux!" Yes, on stripped-down, single-purpose servers managed by pros. That is a completely different threat model than a general-purpose desktop running a GUI, media stacks, fonts, and random user-installed apps.
PLS pour les Jean-Linux
The reality is uncomfortable:
1. The "Sandbox" is nonexistent.
On macOS or ChromeOS, apps have to ask permission to read files. On standard Desktop Linux? A malicious calculator app or a compromised PDF viewer has immediate, total access to your entire home directory. It can grab your SSH keys, browser cookies, and documents without asking.
2. "sudo" is security theater.
If an attacker compromises your user account, they don't need root to own you. They can simply alias sudo in your shell configuration to intercept your password, or use X11 to log your keystrokes. The boundary between "User" and "Root" is porous.
3. The Kernel is behind.
While Windows has spent years implementing aggressive exploit mitigations (CFG, VBS, CET), the Linux kernel remains a massive, monolithic block of memory-unsafe C code with a huge attack surface and significantly fewer modern defenses.
4. Server vs. Desktop.
"But the internet runs on Linux!" Yes, on stripped-down, single-purpose servers managed by pros. That is a completely different threat model than a general-purpose desktop running a GUI, media stacks, fonts, and random user-installed apps.
PLS pour les Jean-Linux
https://x.com/iAnonymous3000/status/1996400615191200047
J'allais faire un long pavé de debunk puis j'ai vu que le mec s'appelait Sooraj, ça suffit amplement à disqualifier son avis
Je pensais que tu étais un Jean Linux
J'ai jamais été un grand fan de Linux en vrai même si j'espere qu'il va bien se developper, je suis retourné sur Windows
J'allais faire un long pavé de debunk puis j'ai vu que le mec s'appelait Sooraj, ça suffit amplement à disqualifier son avis
Linux is currently failing at desktop security.
The reality is uncomfortable:
1. The "Sandbox" is nonexistent.
On macOS or ChromeOS, apps have to ask permission to read files. On standard Desktop Linux? A malicious calculator app or a compromised PDF viewer has immediate, total access to your entire home directory. It can grab your SSH keys, browser cookies, and documents without asking.
2. "sudo" is security theater.
If an attacker compromises your user account, they don't need root to own you. They can simply alias sudo in your shell configuration to intercept your password, or use X11 to log your keystrokes. The boundary between "User" and "Root" is porous.
3. The Kernel is behind.
While Windows has spent years implementing aggressive exploit mitigations (CFG, VBS, CET), the Linux kernel remains a massive, monolithic block of memory-unsafe C code with a huge attack surface and significantly fewer modern defenses.
4. Server vs. Desktop.
"But the internet runs on Linux!" Yes, on stripped-down, single-purpose servers managed by pros. That is a completely different threat model than a general-purpose desktop running a GUI, media stacks, fonts, and random user-installed apps.
PLS pour les Jean-Linux
The reality is uncomfortable:
1. The "Sandbox" is nonexistent.
On macOS or ChromeOS, apps have to ask permission to read files. On standard Desktop Linux? A malicious calculator app or a compromised PDF viewer has immediate, total access to your entire home directory. It can grab your SSH keys, browser cookies, and documents without asking.
2. "sudo" is security theater.
If an attacker compromises your user account, they don't need root to own you. They can simply alias sudo in your shell configuration to intercept your password, or use X11 to log your keystrokes. The boundary between "User" and "Root" is porous.
3. The Kernel is behind.
While Windows has spent years implementing aggressive exploit mitigations (CFG, VBS, CET), the Linux kernel remains a massive, monolithic block of memory-unsafe C code with a huge attack surface and significantly fewer modern defenses.
4. Server vs. Desktop.
"But the internet runs on Linux!" Yes, on stripped-down, single-purpose servers managed by pros. That is a completely different threat model than a general-purpose desktop running a GUI, media stacks, fonts, and random user-installed apps.
PLS pour les Jean-Linux
https://x.com/iAnonymous3000/status/1996400615191200047
L'expert en sécurité qui n'a jamais entendu parler de gestion de droits.
L'expert en sécurité qui n'a jamais entendu parler de gestion de droits.
No Nut : 5ème régiment, matricule R5-05
zéro virus contrairement à windaube
Parce que les hackeurs savent que les utilisateurs de linux sont à 90% des informaticiens puant, donc aucun intérêt de perde du temps pour eux
Linux is currently failing at desktop security.
The reality is uncomfortable:
1. The "Sandbox" is nonexistent.
On macOS or ChromeOS, apps have to ask permission to read files. On standard Desktop Linux? A malicious calculator app or a compromised PDF viewer has immediate, total access to your entire home directory. It can grab your SSH keys, browser cookies, and documents without asking.
2. "sudo" is security theater.
If an attacker compromises your user account, they don't need root to own you. They can simply alias sudo in your shell configuration to intercept your password, or use X11 to log your keystrokes. The boundary between "User" and "Root" is porous.
3. The Kernel is behind.
While Windows has spent years implementing aggressive exploit mitigations (CFG, VBS, CET), the Linux kernel remains a massive, monolithic block of memory-unsafe C code with a huge attack surface and significantly fewer modern defenses.
4. Server vs. Desktop.
"But the internet runs on Linux!" Yes, on stripped-down, single-purpose servers managed by pros. That is a completely different threat model than a general-purpose desktop running a GUI, media stacks, fonts, and random user-installed apps.
PLS pour les Jean-Linux
The reality is uncomfortable:
1. The "Sandbox" is nonexistent.
On macOS or ChromeOS, apps have to ask permission to read files. On standard Desktop Linux? A malicious calculator app or a compromised PDF viewer has immediate, total access to your entire home directory. It can grab your SSH keys, browser cookies, and documents without asking.
2. "sudo" is security theater.
If an attacker compromises your user account, they don't need root to own you. They can simply alias sudo in your shell configuration to intercept your password, or use X11 to log your keystrokes. The boundary between "User" and "Root" is porous.
3. The Kernel is behind.
While Windows has spent years implementing aggressive exploit mitigations (CFG, VBS, CET), the Linux kernel remains a massive, monolithic block of memory-unsafe C code with a huge attack surface and significantly fewer modern defenses.
4. Server vs. Desktop.
"But the internet runs on Linux!" Yes, on stripped-down, single-purpose servers managed by pros. That is a completely different threat model than a general-purpose desktop running a GUI, media stacks, fonts, and random user-installed apps.
PLS pour les Jean-Linux
https://x.com/iAnonymous3000/status/1996400615191200047
1. C'est le problème de X11. Wayland règle ça et Flathub ainsi que Snap.
2. Oui. M'enfin c'est comme le mode admin de Windows.
Et je rajouterai que Windows, de par sa grande présence sur les PCs, est largement plus la cible des attaques.
2. Oui. M'enfin c'est comme le mode admin de Windows.
Et je rajouterai que Windows, de par sa grande présence sur les PCs, est largement plus la cible des attaques.
Nous sommes un.
Linux is currently failing at desktop security.
The reality is uncomfortable:
1. The "Sandbox" is nonexistent.
On macOS or ChromeOS, apps have to ask permission to read files. On standard Desktop Linux? A malicious calculator app or a compromised PDF viewer has immediate, total access to your entire home directory. It can grab your SSH keys, browser cookies, and documents without asking.
2. "sudo" is security theater.
If an attacker compromises your user account, they don't need root to own you. They can simply alias sudo in your shell configuration to intercept your password, or use X11 to log your keystrokes. The boundary between "User" and "Root" is porous.
3. The Kernel is behind.
While Windows has spent years implementing aggressive exploit mitigations (CFG, VBS, CET), the Linux kernel remains a massive, monolithic block of memory-unsafe C code with a huge attack surface and significantly fewer modern defenses.
4. Server vs. Desktop.
"But the internet runs on Linux!" Yes, on stripped-down, single-purpose servers managed by pros. That is a completely different threat model than a general-purpose desktop running a GUI, media stacks, fonts, and random user-installed apps.
PLS pour les Jean-Linux
The reality is uncomfortable:
1. The "Sandbox" is nonexistent.
On macOS or ChromeOS, apps have to ask permission to read files. On standard Desktop Linux? A malicious calculator app or a compromised PDF viewer has immediate, total access to your entire home directory. It can grab your SSH keys, browser cookies, and documents without asking.
2. "sudo" is security theater.
If an attacker compromises your user account, they don't need root to own you. They can simply alias sudo in your shell configuration to intercept your password, or use X11 to log your keystrokes. The boundary between "User" and "Root" is porous.
3. The Kernel is behind.
While Windows has spent years implementing aggressive exploit mitigations (CFG, VBS, CET), the Linux kernel remains a massive, monolithic block of memory-unsafe C code with a huge attack surface and significantly fewer modern defenses.
4. Server vs. Desktop.
"But the internet runs on Linux!" Yes, on stripped-down, single-purpose servers managed by pros. That is a completely different threat model than a general-purpose desktop running a GUI, media stacks, fonts, and random user-installed apps.
PLS pour les Jean-Linux
https://x.com/iAnonymous3000/status/1996400615191200047
Oui mais moins populaires donc moins d'emmerde
Kénophobie ou Leukophobie
L'op qui va perdre 80% des foromeurs d'entrée de jeu parce qu'il a pas traduit le texte
Saar we love Windows and Israel saar
Nous sommes la jeunesse, nous sommes la vie, Rex doit vaincre c'est pourquoi Rex vaincra
Linux is currently failing at desktop security.
The reality is uncomfortable:
1. The "Sandbox" is nonexistent.
On macOS or ChromeOS, apps have to ask permission to read files. On standard Desktop Linux? A malicious calculator app or a compromised PDF viewer has immediate, total access to your entire home directory. It can grab your SSH keys, browser cookies, and documents without asking.
2. "sudo" is security theater.
If an attacker compromises your user account, they don't need root to own you. They can simply alias sudo in your shell configuration to intercept your password, or use X11 to log your keystrokes. The boundary between "User" and "Root" is porous.
3. The Kernel is behind.
While Windows has spent years implementing aggressive exploit mitigations (CFG, VBS, CET), the Linux kernel remains a massive, monolithic block of memory-unsafe C code with a huge attack surface and significantly fewer modern defenses.
4. Server vs. Desktop.
"But the internet runs on Linux!" Yes, on stripped-down, single-purpose servers managed by pros. That is a completely different threat model than a general-purpose desktop running a GUI, media stacks, fonts, and random user-installed apps.
PLS pour les Jean-Linux
The reality is uncomfortable:
1. The "Sandbox" is nonexistent.
On macOS or ChromeOS, apps have to ask permission to read files. On standard Desktop Linux? A malicious calculator app or a compromised PDF viewer has immediate, total access to your entire home directory. It can grab your SSH keys, browser cookies, and documents without asking.
2. "sudo" is security theater.
If an attacker compromises your user account, they don't need root to own you. They can simply alias sudo in your shell configuration to intercept your password, or use X11 to log your keystrokes. The boundary between "User" and "Root" is porous.
3. The Kernel is behind.
While Windows has spent years implementing aggressive exploit mitigations (CFG, VBS, CET), the Linux kernel remains a massive, monolithic block of memory-unsafe C code with a huge attack surface and significantly fewer modern defenses.
4. Server vs. Desktop.
"But the internet runs on Linux!" Yes, on stripped-down, single-purpose servers managed by pros. That is a completely different threat model than a general-purpose desktop running a GUI, media stacks, fonts, and random user-installed apps.
PLS pour les Jean-Linux
https://x.com/iAnonymous3000/status/1996400615191200047
Depuis la backdoor xz utils, j'ai arrêté Linux. Impossible de savoir si tes packages sont compromis vu que tout est dev par des inconnus...
"Oui mais tu peux aller lire le code source"
J'ai que ça à foutre d'analyser les modifications du code à chaque maj d'un package
"Oui mais tu peux aller lire le code source"
J'ai que ça à foutre d'analyser les modifications du code à chaque maj d'un package
Depuis la backdoor xz utils, j'ai arrêté Linux. Impossible de savoir si tes packages sont compromis vu que tout est dev par des inconnus...
"Oui mais tu peux aller lire le code source"
J'ai que ça à foutre d'analyser les modifications du code à chaque maj d'un package
"Oui mais tu peux aller lire le code source"
J'ai que ça à foutre d'analyser les modifications du code à chaque maj d'un package