Is Linux really safe and stable?

This is the one million question. All GNU / Linux users have a favorite distribution, either because it is the first one we tried, because of its philosophy, or for other reasons.

One of them is usually that GNU / Linux does not suffer the so-called "Windows effect", which forces us to reinstall the system from time to time.

Another is because we want to keep our data safe and we know that obtaining a root password is more complex than obtaining a Windows administrator password (where in many cases, it is conspicuous by its absence).

All distributions offer as standard the option to encrypt the partitions with LVM with a password, and independently we can encrypt the users' folders giving greater security to the system, but are these partitions / folders safe?

It depends. It is often said that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, which, in our case, are the users.

Recently, a news item came out with the passwords most used by Abobe and the most used was 123456 (what this fragment of Spaceballs reminded me). This turns a secure system into a potato, regardless of whether it is Linux or Windows.

Stability is another of GNU / Linux's strengths, which in this case does not depend so much on the user, but rather on the administrator, that some suffer from the damn versionitis.

Having the latest version of the programs, being up to date, I'm not going to deny it, it's cool, but I think one of the strong points of distributions like Debian is that it only publishes one version of the program until it ensures that there are 0 bugs ( in stable repositories).

Where do I want to go with this article? Is that stability and security only depends on how we manage the system. It is very important to have good security with passwords, (alphanumeric, with special characters, 7 or more characters, that are changed from time to time and a long list of options) and also try to have the systems sufficiently updated so that there are no vulnerabilities in programs and don't install something if you don't need it.

Distrust is the mother of security.

Aristophanes

 


The content of the article adheres to our principles of editorial ethics. To report an error click here!.

24 comments, leave yours

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

*

*

  1. Responsible for the data: Miguel Ángel Gatón
  2. Purpose of the data: Control SPAM, comment management.
  3. Legitimation: Your consent
  4. Communication of the data: The data will not be communicated to third parties except by legal obligation.
  5. Data storage: Database hosted by Occentus Networks (EU)
  6. Rights: At any time you can limit, recover and delete your information.

  1.   Cocolio said

    Hahaha, you reminded me of the Mission Imposible Ghost protocol part when mine gives the guy the briefcase password and it's just 0 0 0 0 hahahahaha

    Now in the part of the installations, in XP if I have had to reinstall many times due to some stupidity that he sent me, I have not reinstalled Windows 7 for more than three years that my laptop has, and I have only reinstalled twice, one because this came with Windows Vista and the second because of a stupidity that I just sent myself, Linux is almost the same, and this is where your "versionitis" comes in, as there are so many new versions of Linux and almost every six months because one wants have the system last and many times it fails and thus becomes unstable, which is horrible.

    But another problem with verionitis is that many people want to have the latest version of the program when they barely know how to use it, and that happens in users of any OS or program.

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      The versionitis thing, I am not worried, and more if it is to have the most recent version of Adobe's Creative Suite. The truth is that if you don't know how to handle a program backwards and forwards, you simply become a useless reverend.

      I am satisfied with my dear Debian Wheezy + Windows Vista SP2, which I have been able to take advantage of very well despite the fact that my PC is a Lentium D and I am suffering with the Windows Update tantrums (in fact, many problems that exist in Windows Vista, also shared by Windows 7).

      And as if that were not enough, as for the Windows version of Mozilla Firefox, on single-core PCs (either Lentium IV and Lentium D), it will not be able to run smoothly (unless you have the NVIDIA video installed and / or integrated into your PC) thanks to the GTX interface (in the case of GNU / Linux, there is no problem with it).

  2.   Zicoxy3 said

    I don't know if it is very stable, but I can assure you that it has failed me several times. I'm a windows user, but linux attracts me. The knowledge I have is to read and test. A rookie.
    I have tried Ubuntu in several versions and almost all of them have hit me, having to "format" the system, simply installing something with the instructions in front of the terminal.
    Anyway, now I'm testing Mint 15 and I think that taking advantage of my traditional Christmas formatting in Windows I will make my 2nd migration to Linux. The first I held out for 3 months 😉

    1.    beny_hm said

      I've been with arch for 6 months and I don't want to move 🙂 if you're curious to learn, try arch 🙂 maybe I faccinated you like me 🙂

    2.    Hello said

      Debian stable test I do not think you have complaints ubuntu is not an option for me remember that ubuntu is based on debian better use the father than the son even though ubuntu has changed so much that debian already has only the .deb xD

  3.   ridri said

    I can certify that linux is a secure system. A friend (don't laugh, it's not me) very fond of, but very fond of xxx pages, apart from being a total inept in computing, we mean that when he gets an email like "your horny neighbor wants to meet you" he rushes to click . Well, this friend's windows didn't last two months since it was plagued by viruses, Trojans, worms and all kinds of known malware and the system ended up exploding. Another friend of his would constantly reinstall it until one day I convinced him to install a lubuntu 10.04. He never reinstalled it until three years later his laptop broke and now he has none.
    I believe that linux protects us from non-dedicated attacks, that is, from all the malware that runs on the network. Faced with a targeted attack exploiting vulnerabilities, I imagine there will not be much difference with windows.
    When sometimes we have to install a program that is not in the repositories, after all the work that sometimes has to be done to make it work, I understand why there are no common viruses in Linux.

    1.    Carlos.Gude said

      Where I want to get with the article is that the security and stability of a system depends only on us.

      Regarding what you say about the Trojans, it is true, with Ubuntu it is not necessary to reinstall, but because there are almost no Trojans for Linux, that is why they do not affect it

      1.    ridri said

        I think it is a matter of both. Here in Spain last year many people suffered from the "police virus" where computers were contaminated when opening certain "normal" web pages. For a case that I knew, he was a very careful person except that he is very attached to windows xp that today is a real drain. In any case, let's say that as long as we are not careful, the system just as safe as it is may not be enough.

        1.    beny_hm said

          It is no coincidence that NASA changed OS LINUX FTW!

        2.    O_Pixote_O said

          OMG the police virus was great. I remember going to friends' houses to remove them, I was practicing in a store and they brought us a lot of computers with it, but the best thing was the virus itself. He accused you of terrorism, pedophilia, zoophilia among other things, they put! without any front and a lot of misspellings and cohesion of the text, etc. and there were people who itched. Seriously, they just had to read it through to see that it was a virus.

      2.    guid0ignaci0 said

        It is more than clear what you are aiming for with the post, which depends on the user himself.

        It also helps and a LOT, if you maintain servers, it is to always use stable versions and not distros that we say are always updating to the latest packages.

        To what I am going, if you manage servers, for example do not mount one in Arch, use debian stable and make sure that 80% you already have it covered by the stability that this distro gives you.

    2.    x11tete11x said

      HAHAHAAJJ explode with this comment HAHAHA

  4.   linuxmanr4 said

    There are no absolutes, or impenetrable, but it is definitely more secure than other platforms.

    By the way ... Abobe? As you can see, anyone can make mistakes, the important thing is to correct them.

    1.    Carlos.Gude said

      I am 100% in agreement with you.

  5.   let's use linux said

    I agree Carlos! Security and stability is highly dependent on users, of course. However, as you have pointed out, there are also structural issues that determine the security and stability of a system.
    Hug! Paul.

  6.   Joaquin said

    I strongly agree that "stability and security only depend on how we manage the system."

    Since I have been using GNU / Linux I have been more concerned about security and sometimes I am a bit skeptical about some things: if I find a "strange" file in / tmp I search the internet for what it is.

    And once I got a warning sign and I almost had a fit! From that moment I have been convinced that no system is exempt from being invulnerable. The poster read:

    "Could not lock your mouse.
    A malicious client may be spying on your session or may have just
    clicking on a menu or an application that has just decided to get focus. »

    Apparently it was VirtualBox trying to capture the mouse, but the scare it gave me was great WTF! LOL

  7.   Paul said

    aaahhhhhhh how I like Point Linux. I think that stability, beyond the administrator, in principle depends on the system, explain to me, because ubuntu and derivatives are more unstable than they should? My first linux was precisely Ubuntu, and I never explained why it failed immediately, I began to suspect my pc, however since I met Debian and even more, Point Linux, I never had problems
    stability, and the machine is the same for a few years.

    1.    beny_hm said

      mmm in a way yes and no XD I use ARCH and haven't had any problems so far.

    2.    Hello said

      ubuntu derives from debian but it does not mean that they are the same on the contrary debian stable is a rock debian testing will not give you a major problem and debian sid which is the unstable version for me runs quite stable and having a couple of packages held for a few days does not gives more problems after a few days the updates arrive and the retained packages are updated
      so I can not say the same from ubuntu

  8.   Hello said

    Very good article I found you right in everything nothing more to say

  9.   msx said

    Tricky article - or misaddressed topic.

    Yes, GNU + Linux is far more secure and stable than Windows and Mac PER SE: applying the same stability and security criteria to a Windows system, a Mac and a GNU + Linux, the latter sweeps by far.

    1.    Carlos.Gude said

      This is exactly where I wanted to go.

  10.   kuktos said

    This is why I love Debian

  11.   Wisp said

    Even for the most novice and psychopathic windowslerdo, any Linux distro is three billion times more secure than the window stupidity they love to use.