Post AiA2GfIO8BBK8Y2LCq by katharsisdrill@hostux.social
 (DIR) More posts by katharsisdrill@hostux.social
 (DIR) Post #AiA2GdaOUGOcpoRgzg by nickfrederiksen@expressional.social
       2024-05-22T06:42:51Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Following, intently, the #MicrosoftRecall discussions on here.I for one, am actually a Windows user. And yes, I have disabled all that "copilot"-nonsense and will do so with the recall feature.However. I really think the Linux community is a bit out of touch with reality here.The argument against Recall, for the most part, is privacy. People argue that a threat actor with physical access to the computer, or through an open vulnerability in the OS, will have access to the data.Please tell me again how secure a Linux system is, against a threat actor with physical access or through an open vulnerability in the OS? How does Linux defer from Windows in that regard?Recall needs access through the currently logged in user. Meaning you need the access code. Linux needs access through the currently logged in user. Meaning you need the access code. And my experience tells me the root/sudo code are the same as the current users. Meaning, if you know one, you know the other.
       
 (DIR) Post #AiA2GeV75NlZfiyzOz by nickfrederiksen@expressional.social
       2024-05-22T06:45:12Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       I am genuinely curious.How can Linux be a more secure OS, when facing the same threat, eg. a threat actor with physical access, knowledge of open vulnerabilities and/or knowledge of access codes?
       
 (DIR) Post #AiA2GfIO8BBK8Y2LCq by katharsisdrill@hostux.social
       2024-05-22T20:23:53Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @nickfrederiksen - I've only seen people pointing to Microsoft itself as the threat actor ... but reshared to see if some can answer you.Linux on the desktop will probably take 92 years more before it happens.
       
 (DIR) Post #AiA2Gfr830yFsII5M8 by nickfrederiksen@expressional.social
       2024-05-22T20:35:00Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @katharsisdrill thanks...I do think it's interesting though... For so lang, we've heard that "Linux is the most secure OS ever". But it is only secure IF the user secures it. Same goes for Windows, (and macOS, Ios, android etc).If you keep all that copilot crap running on a windows pc, sure the system will be less secure. But is Linux more secure when everyone tells you to just install this and that package from this and that unverified source to solve a common problem?I really am curious about this...
       
 (DIR) Post #AiA2GgVtbRa3ujMdto by sarvo@novoa.nagoya
       2024-05-22T20:47:37.856Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @nickfrederiksen@expressional.social @katharsisdrill@hostux.social the most secure and actively developed OS is openbsd.Linux is just good enough because most of the software you run is libre and open source so it is at leas modifiable and verifiable unlike any closed source software like everything that is in windows. In other words you couls be certain that the program does what it says it does, specially if you compile it yourself.Linux is more secure because of this as a baseline, but if someone has physical access to your device it is basically the same as windows unless you encrypt your disk or partitions, then it is more secure.Anyway the worse threat actor is Microsoft itself not some random guy, that you share your office with or whatever.
       
 (DIR) Post #AiA8djxPZ3u0ypbxlg by katharsisdrill@hostux.social
       2024-05-22T20:53:42Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @sarvo @nickfrederiksen - The thing that has blown my mind is that you buy a product (WIN11) and they put all these commercials and "helpful tools" that is really only there, if you look at it from a business perspective, to benefit MS.I installed a double boot on my daughters new computer the other day and was frankly chocked about Win 11.