Would it be so difficult to place somewhere in an "Operating System" tagged posting which operating system was affected? Slashdot folks really might have more than one OS in their areas and it would be nice to know which is at risk right at the top.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Thursday June 28, 2018 @08:40PM (#56862768)
If malware does attack your linux computer, rest assured that only all of your personal content in your home directory will be wiped. The actual OS and software that you can download and install again for free is protected.
Well, the severity of the two problems likely comes down to whether it's for personal use or not. Servers or multi-user workstations probably care a lot more about the system still being usable, vs a user losing their stuff.
Yeah, it's always funny how Linux users will brag about how the OS will be fine but couldn't care less that your home folder can still be compromised or wiped.
You should always regularly backup your system. So, if you are compromised and it only wipes your home folder, then it's a lot easier to recover your personal information.
You, know, the only stuff that's actually important and many cases potentially irreplacable.
If you care enough about irreplacable stuff, back it up. Hardware fails. Virtually anyo
In reality though, my PCs have never been compromised in 18 years running desktop Linux... and never needed an antivirus. It's true that running as a limited user isn't a huge advantage in itself, just a small one. The main thing that makes Linux safer, I think, is that nearly everything I install is from a trusted repository -- not random websites that may have been compromised themselves. Microsoft tried to copy that with Windows Store, but they allow adware and don't review the source code to prevent outright malware either so it doesn't really help.
You just didn't know it was hacked. That much is clear. Besides, they didn't even have windows 30 years ago, as such. It was an add on to dos. To get a real widows OS you would need something like a Unix box running X11 or MacOS. Windows was just a toy really back then. It wasn't until 95 that windows really was onto its own.
Don't think you're safe today. It's easy to hack a windows box if you know what you're doing.
Actually Linux is more vulnerable than Windows to this kind of attack because most Linux systems do not implement any kind of secure boot procedure.
These rootkits work by replacing some parts of the OS that are loaded very early in the boot process, things like core SATA drivers needed to read in the rest of the OS or parts of the kernel. That makes them very hard to detect and remove, because any software running on the OS that tries to read those files can be supplied with a clean copy by the rootkit. Eve
In both cases (Linux and Windows) some kind of root exploit is needed to alter those files in the first place. The difference is...
..that while a Windows user is willing to run that root exploit, a typical Linux user is far too lazy to remount/boot as rw and then sudo apt-get install malware. Most Linux users are so lazy they never bother to try out any malware at all, going for decades at a time, never having the tenacity or curiosity to try out "what's it like to have a computer that runs software intend
These rootkits work by replacing some parts of the OS that are loaded very early in the boot process, things like core SATA drivers needed to read in the rest of the OS or parts of the kernel. That makes them very hard to detect and remove, because any software running on the OS that tries to read those files can be supplied with a clean copy by the rootkit. Even the kernel can't easily figure out if the SATA driver or the filesystem handler is really giving it the true data or a fake copy.
And isn't that the point of Linux? You don't touch the OS at all from Linux's user stand point. If you install any program, it should come from a (trusted) repository, not simply download from a site. When install, you will need to enter root password if the installation requires changes in critical system. If you are a user, you shouldn't be able to do that but rather install under your own privilege; thus, no OS. If you are the admin, then you deserve it because you should know better to be an admin. That
Veni, Vidi, VISA:
I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.
Microsoft Windows only (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
If you don't see an operating system listed, you can rest assured that it's windows.
Re: (Score:0)
Yeah or maybe just read the article.
Meanwhile, Linux users rest easy assuming no harm can penetrate Fortress Europe.
Re: Microsoft Windows only (Score:2, Insightful)
If malware does attack your linux computer, rest assured that only all of your personal content in your home directory will be wiped. The actual OS and software that you can download and install again for free is protected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You should always regularly backup your system. So, if you are compromised and it only wipes your home folder, then it's a lot easier to recover your personal information.
If you care enough about irreplacable stuff, back it up. Hardware fails. Virtually anyo
Re: Microsoft Windows only (Score:4, Insightful)
In reality though, my PCs have never been compromised in 18 years running desktop Linux... and never needed an antivirus. It's true that running as a limited user isn't a huge advantage in itself, just a small one. The main thing that makes Linux safer, I think, is that nearly everything I install is from a trusted repository -- not random websites that may have been compromised themselves. Microsoft tried to copy that with Windows Store, but they allow adware and don't review the source code to prevent outright malware either so it doesn't really help.
Re: (Score:2)
In 30 years of using Windows, my Windows machine has never been compromised.
Thus I can conclude that Windows is completely 100% secure.
Re: (Score:1)
You just didn't know it was hacked. That much is clear.
Besides, they didn't even have windows 30 years ago, as such. It was an add on to dos. To get a real widows OS you would need something like a Unix box running X11 or MacOS. Windows was just a toy really back then. It wasn't until 95 that windows really was onto its own.
Don't think you're safe today. It's easy to hack a windows box if you know what you're doing.
Re: (Score:2)
In reality though, my PCs have never been compromised in 18 years running desktop Linux...
It is impossible to be 100% sure that you are not compromised. The best you can do is keeping your eyes open.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually Linux is more vulnerable than Windows to this kind of attack because most Linux systems do not implement any kind of secure boot procedure.
These rootkits work by replacing some parts of the OS that are loaded very early in the boot process, things like core SATA drivers needed to read in the rest of the OS or parts of the kernel. That makes them very hard to detect and remove, because any software running on the OS that tries to read those files can be supplied with a clean copy by the rootkit. Eve
The difference between Linux-vs-Win boot malware (Score:1)
..that while a Windows user is willing to run that root exploit, a typical Linux user is far too lazy to remount /boot as rw and then sudo apt-get install malware. Most Linux users are so lazy they never bother to try out any malware at all, going for decades at a time, never having the tenacity or curiosity to try out "what's it like to have a computer that runs software intend
Re: (Score:1)
These rootkits work by replacing some parts of the OS that are loaded very early in the boot process, things like core SATA drivers needed to read in the rest of the OS or parts of the kernel. That makes them very hard to detect and remove, because any software running on the OS that tries to read those files can be supplied with a clean copy by the rootkit. Even the kernel can't easily figure out if the SATA driver or the filesystem handler is really giving it the true data or a fake copy.
And isn't that the point of Linux? You don't touch the OS at all from Linux's user stand point. If you install any program, it should come from a (trusted) repository, not simply download from a site. When install, you will need to enter root password if the installation requires changes in critical system. If you are a user, you shouldn't be able to do that but rather install under your own privilege; thus, no OS. If you are the admin, then you deserve it because you should know better to be an admin. That