UK's Security Branch Says Ubuntu Most Secure End-User OS

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
The UKs Communication-Electronics Security Group has given the Linux community something to gloat over. After the CESG finished testing out the most popular operating systems for security, the group chose Ubuntu 12.04 as the most secure.

Problems aside, the simple truth is that if security is what you want most from desktop, smartphone, or tablet operating systems than Ubuntu is what you should be using.
Click to expand...
 
security though being unpopular guess that's why macs are soo secure... most security problems can never be fixed as the problem lies between the chair and keyboard. Can't fix stupid.
 
Semantics said:
security though being unpopular guess that's why macs are soo secure... most security problems can never be fixed as the problem lies between the chair and keyboard. Can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Although I see many terrible users on windows also.

Linux? Not quite so much, although you still wonder how some people managed to burn an ISO to a CD.
 
Semantics said:
security though being unpopular guess that's why macs are soo secure...
Click to expand...

linux is more secure because they consistently focus on making it more secure. Executables work differently, drivers, libraries, permissions, etc. SELinux makes it even tougher. Linux was preventing malicious activity after a buffer overflow while windows was getting hit by worm after worm.

Some of these things are what make it more cumbersome as a desktop environment.

And it's NOT unpopular. Linux is the most popular server installation so while there may not be as many desktop users, there are plenty of services exposed to the web on linux servers which are far far meatier targets for hackers.
 
InternationalHat said:
linux is more secure because they consistently focus on making it more secure. Executables work differently, drivers, libraries, permissions, etc. SELinux makes it even tougher. Linux was preventing malicious activity after a buffer overflow while windows was getting hit by worm after worm.

Some of these things are what make it more cumbersome as a desktop environment.

And it's NOT unpopular. Linux is the most popular server installation so while there may not be as many desktop users, there are plenty of services exposed to the web on linux servers which are far far meatier targets for hackers.
Click to expand...
Ubuntu i'm talking about specifically.
 
NixZiZ said:
Indeed. Although I see many terrible users on windows also.

Linux? Not quite so much, although you still wonder how some people managed to burn an ISO to a CD.
Click to expand...

Why do you trust what GCHQ says? These are the same guys that the NSA uses to get information on U.S. Citizens.

Maybe it's time to get paranoid about Ubuntu.
 
The story states the survey was limited to "the most popular end-user operating systems for desktops, smartphones, and tablets. This included: Android 4.2, Android 4.2 on Samsung devices; iOS 6, Blackberry 10.1, Google's Chrome OS 26, Ubuntu 12.04, Windows 7 and 8; Windows 8 RT, and Windows Phone 8."

So TAILS was not considered. Nor was DOD SPI's Lightweight Portable Security or Anonym.OS. Nor were most BSDs OSes (no OpenBSD, just Mac OS X/iOS to the extent that it uses BSD code.).
 
Ubuntu just floats on my laptop until I try to game.
But honestly that's more AMD's fault for crappy Linux video drivers than Ubuntu's.
Big reason I'm hopeful Steam Machines take off, better driver support across the board for all Debian based distros.
I think it has a lot to do with the software center, no need to go somewhere else to install most of your software and they keep the store pretty clean.
Really, its been a breeze to pick up and use, much less intimidating some people make it out to be.
 
Umm, wasn't there a news feed here at [H] that basically said Ubuntu was a spyware OS and Canonical wasn't even trying to deny it.. ?

Not trying to bash or start a flame, just going off memory on this one. Might be way off.
 
Complete BS... out of the box with no configs *nix is easier to hack then XP, we are not even talking about win7/8

This was proven at the blackhat 3 or 4 years in a row until they stopped that contest because of the crybabies.
 
ccman said:
The story states the survey was limited to "the most popular end-user operating systems for desktops, smartphones, and tablets. This included: Android 4.2, Android 4.2 on Samsung devices; iOS 6, Blackberry 10.1, Google's Chrome OS 26, Ubuntu 12.04, Windows 7 and 8; Windows 8 RT, and Windows Phone 8."

So TAILS was not considered. Nor was DOD SPI's Lightweight Portable Security or Anonym.OS. Nor were most BSDs OSes (no OpenBSD, just Mac OS X/iOS to the extent that it uses BSD code.).
Click to expand...
I hate to still think OS X is BSD based just because in how little time apple screwed up a good base.
 
No offense NSA/Brit NSA but, until the complete source code for EVERYTHING is open and documented ... assembler, compiler, linker, and all libraries, all source code .... I have zero trust in Linux any more than I'd have faith in Windows or OSX.

If I rewrite with 100% open source tools, a 100% open source OS that I know, with absolute certainty is not pre-hacked, then I'd have trust. Until then assume every computer is hacked and infiltrated ... and assume that the real bad guys will piggyback onto the government surveillance hacks to get access to all the shit your security efforts are trying to secure.

Mr Linux himself had better figure out how to produce a true open and secure version.
 
Koncrete said:
Complete BS... out of the box with no configs *nix is easier to hack then XP, we are not even talking about win7/8

This was proven at the blackhat 3 or 4 years in a row until they stopped that contest because of the crybabies.
Click to expand...

I'd need to see a source for this. It sounds like nonsense. A bunch of members of my team were at defcon and blackhat every year when I was in security and I did not hear anything like it. Anecdotally, the easiest route into networks during pen tests was almost always a windows domain controller or an out of date windows box.

If by "out of the box" you mean with no security updates then maybe as exploits are published and readily available.

But XP is far and away easier to disrupt by exploiting installed software. The linux kernel has had ASLR implemented for years as well as supported the NX bit. It's more of a pain in the ass to escalate permissions on linux than it is on Pre-Vista windows. Pre-vista windows it's cake. That's why the whole driver model/ring 0 shit changed.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
No offense NSA/Brit NSA but, until the complete source code for EVERYTHING is open and documented ... assembler, compiler, linker, and all libraries, all source code .... I have zero trust in Linux any more than I'd have faith in Windows or OSX.

If I rewrite with 100% open source tools, a 100% open source OS that I know, with absolute certainty is not pre-hacked, then I'd have trust. Until then assume every computer is hacked and infiltrated ... and assume that the real bad guys will piggyback onto the government surveillance hacks to get access to all the shit your security efforts are trying to secure.

Mr Linux himself had better figure out how to produce a true open and secure version.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean that linux isn't truly open source? As far as I know, it's as open source as it gets. Don't know which part of the code you can't see? Debian for example is so strict of openness that there's no FireFox for Debian. It comes with Iceweasel, which is FireFox but with different logo. Apparently the FireFox logo is copyrighted and that's a problem for Debian as it's not very open to them.
 
Ashbringer said:
Not sure what you mean that linux isn't truly open source? As far as I know, it's as open source as it gets. Don't know which part of the code you can't see? Debian for example is so strict of openness that there's no FireFox for Debian. It comes with Iceweasel, which is FireFox but with different logo. Apparently the FireFox logo is copyrighted and that's a problem for Debian as it's not very open to them.
Click to expand...

Not sure either, but let's be honest, the NSA or GCHQ could easily be working in holes in the security that nobody noticed. It's a big code base and we already know they've done this with encryption, so there's no reason to believe they wouldn't do that with Linux.

Again, I consider the source of this information unreliable, assuming you're worried about Govt. spying. If you're worried about the regular bad guys, then maybe it's safer. Then again, maybe the regular bad guys have snuck in some exploits.

The reality is that Desktop Linux has such a small footprint, it's just not worth attacking.
 
nilepez said:
Not sure either, but let's be honest, the NSA or GCHQ could easily be working in holes in the security that nobody noticed. It's a big code base and we already know they've done this with encryption, so there's no reason to believe they wouldn't do that with Linux.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that.

There's no way this would happen with crazy linus and his work on the kernel.

Plus linux is not American. Other countries are involved in development of the kernel and drivers meaning there's no proclivity towards any nationality.

This isn't how this all works either. You don't go get the source for something and sneak things in hoping no one notices. You build the best payload you can that covers its own tracks and then you change the target vector depending on what is available - unpatched services, custom web applications, or your own unpublished exploits.
 
Hmm Govt. Security dept tells you which OS they consider the most secure...in the hope you use it?

Thats handy...for them.

The words 'run in the opposite direction' spring to mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top