Why is Linux safer than Windows?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 апр 2024
- // Description
___
Hi Hackers! hopefully you will be fine. In This video, I have told you why Linux is more secure and safe than that of windows. Linux is an open source operating system which is safer than that of windows. Please watch the complete video to get the answer to this question. If You like my content, you can support me here
☕☕BuyMeCoffee: shorturl.at/fqvCO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Follow Me Here
🚀🚀 Instagram: shorturl.at/adJV1
😎 Second Channel: shorturl.at/afMQ4
🌐🌐 Website: shorturl.at/uPTX4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Tags
#ethicalhacking #hackingtools #linux #windows #linuxinhindi #hacking 
Наука
the timing of this video is impeccable
I thought this video was going to be about the recent xz backdoor.
Bro, I will make a video on that soon
just installed linux wow i feel much safer thank you
❤❤❤
All OSes have their own security issues but I'll stick with linux no matter what. I'm also using freebsd too as well.
I need PROGRAMS which are not available for any linux or any macos.
Create your own Fucking operating system
I can create programs for it
ms office and adobe i assume?
@@expeditionx1741 👏😆
@@RenderingUser i need not only one office.
Bro did not here of .xz backdoor then
if u set it up right u wouldnt have been affected
Windows could have backdoors right now because it's closed source and no one can see its code other than the code writers.
That only affected a few distros.
Talk about bad timing. 😂😂
it only affected unstable releases of distros before ppl found out about it
so windows has UAC prompts
windows has package managers, linux has packages like .deb, also idk what the package for powershell 7.0 is called
it is open source
most open source linux software can be run on windows or you can find an alternative
almost evrey app auto updated and like i said earlier use a package manager, and linux doesnt auto update by default while windows usually does
sure but this also means that your less likely to find legit software or alternatives, plus theres plenty of other ways to get hacked without an app running on the OS
im not saying dont use linux but if you want to reccomend it dont just lie or kinda hide the truth about stuff
if you watched the video you would realize that he was referring to the default installations of the operating systems (so no scoop or chocolatey) Also literally no one uses .deb or other packages because the software centres are really good at this point
idk that's just my opinion though
windows also has loads of bloat and is generally impossible to change many things on it. In Linux, you can edit everything to be how you like it, in windows, you are restricted.
Most of the arguements you just made apply to linux as well.
Most windows applications can be run on linux via wine as well, I use it all the time, sure you will run into apps that don't work, but that's mostly the fault of windows being closed source in the first place. Just as you said as well, you can find an alternative if you run into that problem. Also, if you are able to install a linux distro, I gurantee you could setup a windows virtual machine to run apps like photoshop, which will keep you away from the sketchy telemetry and secretiveness that is by default in windows.
Windows does have a package manager through 'winget' and the microsoft store, yes, and those applications are signed and verified by the creator/company of the application. In my opinion, winget is the most secure way to install any application on windows, it has a (mostly) community driven repository that it gets applications from, but the msstore is something I don't support, you dont really know where the application your downloading is exactly coming from, and since most of microsoft is closed-sourced, it's hard to trust the msstore, at least for me. But, my biggest gripe about installing apps on windows is that winget doesn't really get much recognition and it's not enabled by default in windows, plus, its pretty annoying to setup initially. Winget is a great idea in my opinion, but microsoft seems to want to push the msstore more then winget. I promise you that you will never see the average person using winget to install applications. Not to mention, installing any library for windows is somewhat of a nightmare, for me, linux seems to work great for libraries and programming in general, that's one of the reasons I don't use windows is because using libraries is unnecessarily difficult, even with winget, I don't think that many libraries are in the winget repo. What I'm really trying to say here though is that, yes, windows does have a package manager, but, it's rarely ever seen, and its never made apparent to the user that it's even a feature, I don't think its a good alternative to any linux repo, but it's a great idea, yet none of it will ever matter if people don't ever use it and instead download applications from a .exe they got on a website or from microsoft's closed-sources app store.
Windows does have UAC and I think it's fairly good, but only when set up correctly, any company that has a good set of UAC for their employees active directory can make it pretty hard to get around. but by default, UAC is pretty weak, and when a threat actor has physical access to a windows pc, and they manage access to a local admin account, they can have full control without any password prompts. Just by replacing the utilman.exe with the cmd.exe in windows, the whole computer is now exposed because the threat actor now has full admin privilege without even cracking a password or taking advantage of privilege escalation. UAC is very important, but windows by default lacks alot of potentially useful configuration. Windows seems to care more about convenience rather than security, "I mean who wants to enter their password every time they install an application."
Apps do not autoupdate in the same way as linux, when an app in windows updates it is more than likely that it is a stable release. It's different with certain linux distros whereas most packages are kept as up-to-date as possible in order to keep up with the developers and prevent vulnerabilities found in previous updates, not to say that this is easy though, alot of rolling release distros or repos can cause issues sometime. One of the things that makes linux great is the fact that you can choose when to update as well, you aren't forced to wait through a blue screen to open your computer and update applications, and recently, you can update every application without ever closing or rebooting your computer via linux. If you really want to as well, it's very easy to setup auto-updates with linux as well.
I could talk about this for hours, and in the end there is really no better choice and its useless arguing over anyway, pick whats best for you and stick with it. But when it comes to arguing about it, do your research as well, understand that windows is closed source and not very configurable, most solutions for problems with linux can be solved manually, that's why I enjoy using it, because I can fix things myself.
"and linux doesnt auto update by default while windows usually does"
depends on your distro
Sir isn't Linux years behind security compared to Windows and is fragmented too? Windows has a huge security budget and vulnerability are discovered and fixed more frequently than Linux where vulnerabilities instead of decreasing are increasing and Linux kernel itself has vulnerabilities? If going by the security aspect of privacy Linux is perhaps much less private and secure compared to Windows and Mac, isn't it?
You should run wireshark or enable web traffic monitoring on your router. Way too much telemetry that windows spits out even when idle. Security and Privacy isn't it when it comes to Windows.
Linux is opened source and most vulnerabilities get fixed within a few hours after being found, Microsoft is almost considered spyware at this point.
I think when it comes to windows vs linux in security, its a matter of the person using the computer, if somebody knows what they're doing then windows can be very secure, the biggest problem is the default configuration windows ships with. Windows Defender is also great and has come a long way from it's initial launch, and when it comes to an anti-virus, linux is pretty lacking. But it's not to say that anti-virus on linux is impossible, apps like clamav and kaspersky do make it possible to detect harmful applications. But, where linux shines in its security is that it is difficult to put malware in the repos and is not as active of a target because of its obscurity. There is a reason that over 90% of the worlds servers use linux, and part of (if not most) of the reason that is is because you can audit the things you are using yourself, you are not just left in the dark about what these applications are doing. If the linux kernel has a vulnerability it is found and patched, I would like for you to find a vulnerability and exploit it yourself if you think you can, you will find that when it comes to the bare-bones things like the kernel, you likely will need to discover a zero-day to exploit it, which is made harder when hundreds of people are racing to fix it before you can exploit it as well. Windows however, has so many unfound vulnerabilities because of it being closed-source that it's only a matter of time before one is found by testing for it or by a source code leak. The day that Windows dies is when the source code is leaked and all the things that were previously hidden will flood out and tens or hundreds of exploits will be created as RCE exploits and others which would likely overwhelm the team at microsoft if they were to ever have their code exposed. There is no wrong or right, for me I enjoy it, if somebody else enjoys windows, so be it, but I believe linux is a brighter future for everyone and I will actively support it.
Lol did you ever hear about Winget ?
Last few days we have a XZ backdoor, last month child porn on open source browser which anyone recommended for Linux, so sorry but no. I'm stay on Windows.
yeah on windows they will hide or be unable to fix their vulnerabilities. Great choice
the XZ backdoor was caught before any real damage was caused, and the only reason it was found was because of it being open source which allowed people to audit it themselves, who knows how many closed source applications allow the company at will to manipulate your device, we've seen that before with companies like facebook. The XZ backdoor is a valid point, but it was only a matter of time before it was found, and the way the backdoor was employed was incredibly sophisticated and not just any person can get away with creating a backdoor as severe as the one seen, and it still took years for that person to gain the trust to get the access to manipulate the source code and maintenance of the XZ package. I will agree that the thorium browser controversy was very odd, but that is not the fault of linux, that was just an application a developer made on github.
Did you hear about the Winget exploit? Where Microsoft MSIX package was broken...
On arch the backdoor was useless, and thats on all distros exept those who link sshd to liblzma , normal debian didnt affected just testing , windows is great operating system its only problem that is owned by microsoft, linux is not easy to hack i dont know why you say that
Why is Windows more secured than Linux
xz exploit 🤨
Just patch, solved...
I think that is where open-source both failed and succeeded. On one hand, if linux was closed-source, this exploit would've been discovered 7 years later.
On the other hand, the fact that people can be so easily manipulated (not blaming the maintainer, this is a global problem), can be bad.
@@hexlocationthe maintainer was a victim, and the community should support him and lighten his load in response instead of whatever the fuck these redditors have been doing
@@manitoba-op4jx exactly. i haven't heard of anyone harassing him but i totally i agree with that.
Soon, you will get a video related to this
❤❤❤