Topic: Linux Vs windows OS security (Read 407 times)

I love Linux for two reasons

1. Its fully transparency ( open source ).
2. Its light weight and faster.

This is flawless victory over windows OS as it's buggy and sluggish which you need higher ram size if you want things to speed up, also windows OS is fully closed source, as for security Linux is still better but not malware proof.

It doesn't matter where your wallet is installed malware affects Linux and Windows OS combine but windows OS is more vulnerable, I will choose windows OS and use my head as my antivirus over malware because antivirus can't safe your ass when it comes to real Trojans and malwares, thread carefully and you will be fine.

I am Linux user than almost a decade. And since 2011, since I've been in crypto, I've only been using wallets on Linux and I've never had any security issues. Windows is also more insecure because most viruses, malware and spyware are developed for Windows. That alone makes Windows more insecure than Linux or MacOS.

Windows is more affected because it's got a wider userbase. It's more widely used compared to Linux or Mac. That's why the majority of malware and viruses is created to attack Windows machines. If the numbers in this article are correct, Windows has a market share of almost 75%. Linux only has 2%. macOS is believed to have 16%.

If you are someone who is creating malware for whatever reason, you would obviously want to infect as many people as possible. You won't get that by targeting Linux users. If the results were reversed, any the majority of computers were running Linux, hackers would have greater inventive attacking that OS. Plus, Linux users are more security oriented than the average Windows user no matter what the stats say.   

A question for the Linux users: Are you hardware components open-source ? Your software is, what about the hardware?
I assume that the hacks of the future will focus more on hardware exploits. That could open new attack vectors even against those who go open-source.

Anything is a better choice than Windows (though I might come through as a Windows hater for saying this, which I am  ). First, as said before, any Linux distro is open source, which automatically makes it better than Windows.
The bests phrase I read about it is: "With Windows you can work on your PC. With Linux you own it".

Also I'm not sure about the Xiaomi parallel. Manjaro is German...



I do, and have been using Linux as my ONLY OS since 2009. I wouldn't touch Windows with a stick. About limits, sometimes it does, but most times it's quite the opposite. There are a lot of Linux apps to replace those found in Windows, in some cases even better than the Windows apps. And, contrarily to Windows, they're all free, which is never a bad thing. You just have to get used to a different method, that's it. For example, if I want a given Linux app, I do a search for best *** for linux, and I usually get dozens of apps to choose from.


True. And on Linux you have options. If you have a super-duper PC and you like the bling, you can run KDE, and it'll work great. I have an old one with a celeron, and don't like bling at all, so I run Openbox, and love it.


Yep. And you have the advantage (at least with VirtualBox) that you can limit the resources available to your guest OS, so you can protect your hardware. And some people claim (I haven't benchmarked it, nor would I know how to do it) that running it in seamless mode it runs even faster than natively.


I wouldn't. That's why I switched to Fedora. The best feature Linux has is it has plenty of choices. Some have drivers problems. Most don't.

I use Linux mainly as my PC and my laptop. I have CLI so they are both Ubuntu base which is easier.
If a user really is used to windows software there is a program called WINE which they could install windows programs like photoshop. If you are also proficient in photoshop, its easier for you to learn GIMP which is a GNU Linux base program that is much like photoshop.

Whatever program there is in Windows, there is the same program for Linux users and they are mostly free. Even the Office such as Libre Office.

Windows is more widely used than linux, so hackers will exploit more than linux

It depends on your primary use of a personal computer. A lot of folks do use linux as their primary pc, but some of them are often in the midst of juggling multiple machines. But, I know that some people here use linux, and would like to be able to do so, (though I haven't yet met one who uses it exclusively).

I also believe that some of those who use windows exclusively could probably be coerced into using linux if they needed to use it, even if they did not use it as their main os. After all, windows has it's place, but it is not the only so and a linux based machine does the same things that a windows machine does.

The smartest advice I've read on this forum is something like this: "If you don't know how to administer Linux OS, then Windows will be much safer for you." Better yet, use hardware wallets, they are safe on Windows if you like this operating system.

Linux is open source operating system. it is must secure then Windows. But the Linux operating system is a bit difficult to use which may make it difficult for you to use. But Windows operating system is controlled by Microsoft company and it is very easy to use which is why everyone is interested in using Windows, but if you want to use operating system to hold cryptocurrency then you can easily use both Windows and Linux. However, its safety always depends on you. If you can keep them secure, then they will be secure. No operating system can protect your crypto without your own secure knowledge.

I doubt that because Linux now supports many software unlike few years back, moreover many use their PC for browsing, watching movies and storing funds and Linux supports VLC player, multiple browsers and crypto wallets, can you tell me any software you think is not available on Linux and let's do some digging?.

That's exactly what I meant. Businesses do use Linux, but the main target is the consumers plus the rest of the businesses that use Windows. That alone, encourages them to code malicious software mainly for Windows. (But, not exclusively)

That's also what I meant! 

Here in Greece, there are countless of merchants that run their business in Windows, but have a Linux hosting service. Also, another reason I hadn't thought of is gaming. There are lots of internet cafes where people enter personal information besides their game's login credentials, such as Facebook, phone number, even credit card details. Gaming doesn't comply with Linux.

For Windows programs to work in Linux, you can install a VirtualBox on which the Windows system will be installed. Having allocated more than 4 gigabytes of RAM to Windows in VirtualBox, all programs should work correctly.
You can also install wine for Linux, which contains a set of libraries and various programs that allow you to run programs from Windows without using virtualization.

In addition to that, one of the main problems with running an OS on an old PC is lack of resources (low CPU clock, ancient GPU, low RAM). Almost all of these issues are addressed by changing the GUI. For example you could face slowness running Ubuntu but you could run Lubuntu on the same old PC very easily simply because the UI framework is different and is light.

It depends on what you do. For example if you just surf the web, do some office work, run a bitcoin client and watch videos there is no difference.
But if you want to run certain games that don't run on Linux, use a certain application that doesn't have a Linux version (although most popular ones either have a release for Linux or have alternative equally good options),... then you will be limited but you can always dual boot.

Does anyone here only use linux as their main pc though?  Wouldn't that limit them from programs that require windows?

As far as I can remember, the original Debian install CD is exclusively free and open source.  That is, unless they lie.  I am confident this is written on their homepage or downloads page somewhere.

I have tried it many times before and I was able to get it working with just that installed.  For the computers I could not get the Wireless card working with it, I just used Ethernet.

Now about the GPU, I just did not install the drivers and ran Debian with whatever I get as default.  It surely slows down the system overall and has bugs or glitches every now and then, you also get stuck with a low display resolution and all that, but I take it as the price I pay for not accepting non-free stuff.  Anyway, say you need a non-free package to get your WiFi card working.  I would imagine this is still so much better than running a distro that comes with non-free packages by default.

I do not know what to say about this.  I am not sure Manjaro would even be a better choice over Windows.  As far as I know, it is like switching from Google Pixel to a Xiaomi phone.  You just move from United States spying on you to China.  I can however just not deny how slick and attractive Manjaro's user interface is.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Absolutely! More complexity usually means better efficiency for a given task or number of tasks, or, more often than not, just a way for the developers to show off their "neck-beards". I haven't come up to a distro specifically designed with crypto in mind (or else I'd be all over it), but short of it, security and complexity are two completely different things.


Yeah, I should've said "all else (or "the user")  being equal". Sorry.
True, the user is always the biggest variable in a computer system. You can't expect your system to be "secure" if you're not.


Let me tell you my experience: I had a 17" Hewlett-Packard laptop. Quad core, 16 gigs of ram, back in 2014.
It wasn't an old computer. In fact, it was so new that I got mad at Debian because they still didn't have free versions for its drivers, but they didn't allow the use of non-free drivers.
 Used it on Fedora without issue for a couple of years. Not once I saw CPU usage go over 3% (I always run conky on my computers), even when I was running 12 virtual workspaces.
Then I switched to Windows 8.1 because I needed to run Solidworks on it. Whithin a month it blew 2 hard drives.


Yeah, I've seen that, and to be honest, I have mixed feelings about it.
Some distros (like Manjaro, for example) made strides to become friendlier to newbie users, yet still  can't get rid of some of Arch's quirks, like their repo lists getting corrupted all the time, while others have become so bloated they're a nightmare to use (still better than Windows though).
I was first introduced to Fedora (then "Fedora Core"), I think in 2002 or 2003. Just couldn't use it at all. Then I started on Ubuntu (with Gnome, WITHOUT Unity) and loved it. Sure, it was different from Windows, but in no way was "difficult" to use.

Another point is the term "virus" is such a broad term these days, and is often used for unwanted programs, bloatware, adware, and all sorts these days since most of those are detrimental to the users experience either through collecting data or hogging computer resources. Unless, we get down nitty gritty in defining what types of viruses or what you personally consider a virus, and what sort of risks are associated with them when you compare Linux to Windows, it'll be hard to really get down to the differences between the two. Since, I think the definition of viruses' these days have been blurred because a security specialist will definitely have a different view point what defines something as a virus compared to the general consumer.

If your definition of viruses' is unwanted software, which could be detrimental to the computer itself then Linux is definitely as susceptible, since all it would take is downloading something from the internet, and then that either installs a dependency that touches upon the issues highlighted above or the program itself monitors or uses computer resources for something you didn't originally intend. The beauty of Linux is you usually have to authorise this by elevating admin privileges every time, where as this isn't the case in Windows. Although, it's also worth mentioning you can prevent this behaviour in Linux, and therefore make it less secure.

Businesses? Most will be using Linux servers to run their website etc. Most banks will be using Linux. Although, I do agree with you which I've partly hinted to in my above reply, that the attack surface is definitely in the favour of Linux, i.e Linux is much less targetted at least from a general consumer view point than Windows. However, most businesses will be using Linux in some capacity, whether that's using them directly themselves (less likely) or using products/services that run on Linux.

I'd speculate that your more likely to have script kiddies, and less sophisticated attacks on Windows than Linux. There's a certain technical requirement that needs to be met, since usually the more sophisticated you're the bigger targets you go for, therefore Linux predominately being used by businesses rather than your average computer user, it would likely be subject to more advanced attackers. I can't prove that, I don't have any data to back that up, it's largely an assumption on my part, but I think there's some logical merit to that.

Don't think I know many companies that offer servers to offer them via Windows, they're almost always exclusively Linux, since the overheads are much less especially running Linux in headless, and therefore they run more efficiently. Plus, there are more things you can do with a Linux operating system it being open source, so if you're providing servers you can optimise it based on client needs, as well as security.

I do know what your getting at though, most businesses at least lower level businesses won't be using Linux as their daily operating system, while they probably still do use Linux indirectly for hosting their websites etc.

It's not the canon, but most people purchase computers with pre-installed OSes. I've never seen any of those having a Linux distro, only Windows. Since these are the hackers' victims, they will spend more time to write their malicious software there. They'll focus on Windows. Or a better example: How many businesses do you know that use Linux?

Having Linux doesn't mean you understand security, but since most don't, there are definitely less dangers to be aware of.

Linux is much better than Windows for several reasons, and main one is that everything is open source and code is available for anyone to see and contribute.
Most malware is made for windows with executable files that simply won't work in most Linux operating system.
There is small elarning curve when you first start to use Linux, but most of the things are very similar with Windows OS.
I tested many crypto wallets in Linux and they are working without issues, maybe for some of them you will need to install extra packages, like for example in Trezor Suite.
Downloading wallets should be complied or downloaded in specific package like deb, but good thing is AppImages that can work across all Linux operating systems.

Most of the time, operating systems are pretty secure. Vulnerabilities are patched out quickly, if your operating system is a stable, and updated version. What it comes down to is how you use your operating system, although Linux does have some advantages with chmod, and the default implementation in a lot of the distributions, for example non elevated permissions, or an operating system like Qubes OS might have the root account disabled entirely.

Basically, it varies from the distribution your planning on using. Definitely, some Linux distributions are absolutely more secure in their default implementation than Windows, though for most people who are security conscious, every operating system is decent, though there are definitely privacy concerns with Windows.

However, your still relying on hardware which is closed source, so still not exactly perfect. Although, I don't agree with you that Linux users don't fall for the same things that Windows users do. Linux is just an alternative, using Linux doesn't nesscatrily mean you understand security, and how it works. Especially, how easy some Linux distributions have become to use now. Maybe, a couple of years ago I would have somewhat agreed with you, but distributions like Ubuntu now are very easy to use without anyone knows anything about Linux, especially when they only use it for certain applications available in the Ubuntu Software, and web browsing.

Worth noting, that complexity doesn't mean more secure. Though, a distro which allows advanced configuration can be made to be more secure, or depending on the knowledge of the user editing it, could actually make it less secure.

I'm not a fan of saying that as a general rule of thumb Linux is safer, it wildly differs on how the user uses the computer, which can definitely range wildly among users. For example, if you're downloading from unverified, and untrustworthy sources, while probably not equally at risk (due to the attack surface that Windows has), however it should be assumed that you're at equal risk.

Although, Linux viruses definitely do exist, and even if we assume the possibility of a Linux virus gaining elevated permissions, there's still issues with exploiting programs that have vulnerabilities themselves. For example, your web browser which could potentially be a security risk. I would say that Linux is more hardened, due to some of the implementations of root, as well as the attack surface being much less than Windows. Although, bare in mind that there's definitely a legitimate risk for viruses etc, as Linux is still targetted by malicious users, since most servers are running on Linux. Most banks use Linux etc.

Right, partially correct I'd say, but ultimately security comes down to how you use the operating system, the credentials used, how you store those credentials etc.  

Yeah, if you're using legacy hardware then Linux will likely run out of box more than say Windows 10 would. Windows 10 needs additional work such as drivers etc, whereas Linux already has some decent coverage on the already implemented ones.

Which, if you aren't an advanced user is becoming simpler, and simpler as time goes on. Ubuntu, and the closer to Windows experience distros have come leaps, and bounds in recent years in terms of simplicity.

I've been a Linux user for a bit more than a decade. I can tell you this:

1. Linux is not an OS, it's a kernel. There are,  as of today, over 1000 OS's (distributions) based on the Linux kernel.

2. Some Linux based distributions (or "distros", as they're called in the community) strive to be as close to Windows as possible, and some don't. At that, if you choose to use Ubuntu, or Linux Mint, or MX Linux, your experience is gonna be arguably much better than if you try to start using Arch, or LFS.

3. Linux is, as a rule, way safer than windows. Then, as it was pointed above, your OS will be as safe as you make it. A whole lot of people move BILLIONS of dollars a day on Windows without a problem. It's true that Linux based distros get no viruses, but it's also true, if you do get one, there is also no antivirus software for it (other than ClamAV, as far as I know), so it's a double edged sword.

4. It's also true there are very few viruses meant to work on Linux, but the real reason (again, as far as I know) is that Linux has a very strong admin policy, and nobody can act as an admin without a password. So, ultimately, Linux based distros are as safe as the password you use on them.

5. As a rule of thumb, Linux based distros are much less demanding on hardware than Windows, which allows you to run them on older PC's without a problem (the one I'm using now is 6 years old, and works beautifully).

6. As beginner friendly as they may be, all Linux based distros have a learning curve, and you have to be willing to learn how to use them.

7. Finally, as far as I know, there are no rehab programs for Linux, so if you get addicted (and chances are you will) you're on your own.  

Using exclusively free and open source software is nearly impossible, especially when we're talking about hardware driver (such as GPU and network card).


Distrowatch "popularity" is based on page view of each distro page. It bad representation of linux distro popularity. For example, it's more likely you'll find Ubuntu user (6th position) rather than MX Linux/Endeavour OS (1st and 2nd position).

I think that your information is greatly outdated. Nowadays one can use a Linux Mint, for example, getting the look and feel pretty close to what's on Windows.


I won't answer to the direct question, but I'll tell something else: no matter how safe an OS is, if you are not used with it you have good chance to make bigger mistakes than on an OS you're used with. So if you are doing great on Windows, my advises are:
* stay on Windows for now (I really hope - for your security - that you have a proper key for it or no key at all and you didn't install a crack for it)
* if you have the time and patience, start taking a look how this and that Linux works for you
* get a hardware wallet (but never forget to pay attention on what software wallet you install and to pay attention against clipboard malware too)
* don't click onto any and every page, link, ad, image, e-mail and so on; don't install everything from any source; don't install cracks

You know, a lot of people aren't even aware that they have a virus or malware on their computer, they use Linux and they think they don't need any protection because viruses and malware don't exist for that OS. While it is undeniable that hackers will not spend their resources to attack 2% of computers running Linux, this does not mean that Linux is bulletproof. I would never use the same computer for pornography, torrents and cryptocurrencies, and these things should be strictly separate no matter which OS we use.

Basically saying the core responsibility of security is of the owner of the device keeping aside the fact that which operating system you are using whether it's windows, Linux or any other.Suppose you install a malicious software or click on the link that was injected with the virus then the system can't protect you in that case.

But definitely yes if we make comparisons then Linux is best security vise from windows and have much secured network than windows.But the problem is how many of us are using it? The members above explained to you that windows is more popular which is why it becomes soft target for the hackers as you could easily find a victim from thousand of people rather than trying from ten people.Here is chart that explains that majority share is dominated by Microsoft windows :

 

This share is slowly being reducing as more people are shifting towards Linux but according to reports the majority of hacks are windows related like Trojans, password hacks, mining related and others.

See this :


Source : Windows contributes 70-80% of hacks

So this is why if we see from security perspective then Linux OS is best and there are other advantages also like open source and you can made customisation to it according to your preference if you have technical knowledge about it.

It is noticeable that you are also far from Linux systems.

See how popular Linux systems are today.
https://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity

But of course, you need to understand for what purposes you want to use these systems. To say that there are no viruses or Trojan on Linux is wrong. But for Windows, launching virus programs is much easier, the user just needs to click on the file to find out later that he launched the pest.
Linux requires permission, that is, root rights, and without certain rights, many programs simply will not start. Therefore, much more viruses are written for Windows systems, but Linux does not remain without threats.
The latest news proves that the main protection of your device is the owner of this device.

https://hackaday.com/2022/01/26/major-bug-grants-root-for-all-major-linux-distributions/

There are more Windows users than there are Linux users so there will always be more attacks against Windows compared to Linux.

Windows is also known to have more vulnerabilities and backdoors (some of them intentionally put there my Microsoft!!!) than Linux that is open source hence transparent.

Being open source also means when a vulnerability is found in Linux it can be quickly fixed as a large number of contributors from all around the world can see the code and help fix it in the shortest time possible. On the other hand when the same happens in the closed source Windows, you have to wait until the small Microsoft Windows dev team figures out what the vulnerability was and how to fix it and then release a fix which takes a lot longer and may not fix the issue completely.

With all that said, if you want security you should aim for cold storage more than anything else.

Linux will have fewer viruses, I have never experienced viruses at all even when I kept downloading files from porn and torrent sites which means it's more secure if it's what you worry about. There are more uses for Linux, even the android we use today on phones are Linux derivatives.

The easiest Linux wallet to use today is the Appimage. You just need to chmod for permission, there is no need to find dependencies anymore whether you use a Debian-based or RPM.

In my non-technical opinion, I'd say Linux is at least slightly more secure compared to Windows due to it's open-source nature. But regardless, even if Linux was less secure, the fact that most malware are made for Windows devices makes Linux more "secure" due to the fact that you will far less likely to be targeted by malware.

Of course though, even if it's the case that Linux was the most secure thing in existence, but if you were to execute random command line codes you see on the internet, then you're screwed regardless.

You can use Windows Tails OS How to Install Tails OS on USB flash drive for Wallet Purpose or Linux or Ubuntu

• https://ubuntu.com/
• https://linuxmint.com/
• https://lubuntu.me/
• https://www.linux.org/pages/download/

Lubuntu is more lightweight than Ubuntu. Linux is first priority, next Ubuntu if you don't want to use Windows

Linux is as secure as you make it.  Makes no sense to run Linux if you are installing only proprietary software that significantly reduce your privacy and security overall.  A clean install of Debian, preferably the fully free one, with only free software like Bitcoin Core is much more secure than a clean install of Windows, even debloated.

What makes your Operating System safer is your behavior.  Stay away from unknown websites that you do not typically trust visiting.  Use Tor Browser with Safest security mode on all the time.  If possible, after a clean Debian install it is recommended that you only use the said Personal Computer or Laptop for Cryptocurrency transactions.  If you start using it for other purposes, risks increase.

A more advanced setup is taking an old Personal Computer, removing any wireless modules from it, purchasing a webcam, installing clean Debian and using the PC as Cold Storage.  But being more advanced, I would rather do a clean Debian install for now and start understanding how a Cold Storage PC works later.  Moving from Windows to Linux is still a great big step towards a better security of your Bitcoin.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

There is no perfect OS. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Linux is lightweight and more secure then windows, but windows is more user friendly and that's why people use windows.

The good thing about Open Source is the code is public and you can read/contribute and better see what is going on. From a security point of view, there is no silver bullet, but when there is a problem the community can find it and solve it.
Windows, on the other hand, is pretty much closed source and if something is not documented then you don't know what is going on and it will take longer to get it fixed. Another important detail is that Windows is a much more popular OS then Linux. This means a lot more malware for windows that will be trying to attack your crypto wallets.

It still depends on how you use these OS.

But most of the linux users are very well knowledgeable on how to avoid simple hacking tricks like phishing which is very common on windows users because they've got the most users.

As explained, the hackers are likely on the side for which they can have more potential victims easily.

That's why for me, whether you use linux or OS but if you're not aware of that simple hacking trick being done through phishing, you're still at risk.

Linux is open-source. Everything's transparent. In Windows, the work is done by Microsoft and the OS is closed-source. Therefore, the former is recommended as it eliminates this trust.

Well, most of the computer users use Windows, so it's reasonable to have more malicious intentions there. Also, people who're using Linux don't fall for crappy software. If I wanted to scam people, I wouldn't choose an OS whose users care about principles such as privacy.

Best to use Linux OS, it is better, more people are using Windows, and due to this, hackers prefer to design malware for Windows which they know it can not be of help for them or of little help that can not be of benefit if they create malware for Linux OS because they know already that people that prefer to choose Linux are conscious of security and safety unlike everybody using Windows. But nonetheless, 100% protection comes from you by making sure you protect your device from online attacks.

Not the full answer that I needed, I'm talking about Trojan and malwares that can affect crypto wallets or even pc, it seems windows OS is the most affected compare to Linux OS.

Most wallets look, feel and work the same way regardless of whether they're installed on windows or Linux.

Devices are only as secure as the competency of their users. If you don't download random stuff/things you don't trust on Windows and don't click random links, you're probably safe enough.

I read online that Linux OS is much more secured than windows OS so how about running a crypto wallet on Linux OS instead? Anyone running wallet on Linux OS on here? .