Hacker News Reader

Comment by codethief | Hacker News Reader

> There's a lot of FUD about how Linux is being shown recently to be less secure than proprietary systems. That's nonsense. But, now there are hard facts from Google's Project Zero, Google's security research team, showing Linux's developers do a faster job of fixing security bugs than anyone else, including Google.

I don't see how the Linux developers' higher speed of fixing security bugs would in any way substantiate the author's claim that Linux is not "less secure than proprietary systems". He completely leaves aside

- the number of security bugs per unit time,

- the severity of the bugs in question, and

- the overall system architecture and the potential impact of security bugs in general. Needless to say, this is where the situation on Linux looks pretty grim compared to current "proprietary systems" (which has nothing to do with the fact that they're proprietary).

View on HN

In a world where bugs are certain, unpatched (because a bug is known but a patch hasn’t been released) e.g. iOS is nominally not more secure than patched Linux, unless possibly if you are a nationstate actor hoarding zerodays. The speed of patching bugs is important because most targets aren’t big enough to be on the receiving end of a zero day. Though I do agree that this doesn’t really say anything about whether one system is more or less secure than others from a design standpoint, it certainly matters from a practical standpoint.

If you're not concerned about zero days, then why does it matter how long project zero knows about the bug before it's patched?

In practice, once it is known that a bug exists, it’s a race against time until someone discovers it.

I don't think we'll ever get a total picture on the first two items from Windows or MacOS, so that's difficult to compare.

What's the issue with Linux's architecture? Hybrid kernels aren't shown to be any more secure than a monokernel to my knowledge. There is something to be said that we don't make kernels for device drivers, which are basically their own operating systems, but that's common to all kernels.

It's very simple. You assume your favorite OS is written by more skillful developers or steered by more skillful architects/tech-lead or overseen by more skillful team leads.

Any of these are wrong.

Propriety systems are closed and obfuscate their flaws.

What architectural/impact differences does Linux have vs others?

See e.g. https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux.html for a detailed discussion.

There's some very good points in there, but (4) is unfair. It's true that there's no boundary between a sudoer and root in Linux, but there's also no boundary between an Administrator and SYSTEM in Windows. UAC, even in the "secure" AlwaysNotify mode which uses the secure desktop, has countless unpatched bypasses[1].

Also, (3) should raise some eyebrows for readers paying attention. Cool, Microsoft removed font parsing from the kernel, how wise of them. Wait a second, why was font parsing in the kernel to begin with? With win32k.sys, it shouldn't be surprising that Microsoft has to do more legwork to bring the attack surface back down to the level of other OSes. They're also exploring the use of eBPF in the Windows kernel too[2].

[1]: https://github.com/hfiref0x/UACME [2]: https://github.com/Microsoft/ebpf-for-windows

Reply on news.ycombinator.com