You could have just said that you don’t know what “security through obscurity” is.
Comment on Google pays $250K for Linux vulnerability allowing guest VM escapes
Ooops@feddit.org 3 days ago There was never an actual notion of “security through obscurity”. LInux runs the complete Internet and most coporate server infrastructure. That’s where the actual money is.
People hallucinating that Linux is something obscure simply have no clue and confused their home desktop for real computing. Windows desktops are constantly targeted not because they are -unlike Linux- so wide-spread but because they are already insanely insecure. They are the low hanging fruit where you can cobble together some cheap shit and will still find million of PCs vulnerable. If you want to find a Linux comparison it’s definitely not server or desktops but cheap IoT devices not having seen an update (or any security to speak of) for many years.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
- Ooops@feddit.org 2 days ago
You are right. I don’t know what your personal definition of “security through obscurity” is as it’s very obviously not matching actual reality.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Just google the term next time rather than embarrassing yourself.
- Ooops@feddit.org 2 days ago
Yes, please do.
The actual notion of “security through obscurity” (that will surely come up on Google if their AI bullshittery hasn’t screwed up completely…) for Linux is insane because open source is the polar opposite. The often more unprecise and colloquial usage I thus assumed you were using doesn’t apply either, for the reasons I summarised.
So which imaginary definition of “security through obscurity” are you using when none of the real ones makes any sense?
phailhaus@piefed.social 3 days ago
Windows desktops are targeted because any place you have a user, you have a vulnerability. The vast majority of Linux installs are servers with extremely limited user activity, which narrows the attack vectors significantly.
frongt@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
In any system, the human is usually the weakest link.