How safe is the Ubuntu OS ?

I'm thinking to install the Ubuntu OS, but my biggest concern is how safe is it? concerning on virus, hacks, etc...

I have the vista 64 bits, but i know that microsoft is the least safe but al least is the most current one that i have used and see a lot of updates (this show how unsafe it is but al least they are fixing).

So would you recommend to give a try?, i have seen videos of the Ubuntu and seems great but i dont know what are the main advantages and disadvantages concerning the Ubuntu and Windows Vista.

Thanks,

 

Hardly any hacker's bother to target Linux, so it will be pretty safe.

 

That depends if it's safe from yourself or hackers.

From hackers, it's very safe. Linux is only about, what, 1% of all computer OSs, so it's a very small target group. The hackers would rather target the other 99% of users

From yourself, not so much. You'll find Ubuntu (and linux in general) so configurable and tweakable that you might spend HOURS just tweaking the appearances

 

Yeah, my first 2 weeks on linux were with Ubuntu. I loved it so much that I broke it.

In addition to the rampant unpopularity, there are some integral virtues of linux that make it very secure against malware and viruses. For one, linux is completely designed around a rock solid access control system. Mainstream distros like Ubuntu make that even more secure by adding the NSA's SELinux module into their systems.

Also, viruses are not able to propagate through *nix systems, at least not in the same way they do in Windows. Take a hint from the internet service corporations who use *nix backbones. If you're a security freak, linux + SELinux is your killer combo.

Of course... you could also multi-crypt your entire filesystem in AES, Twofish, and Serpent... three different passwords are needed for access.

 

vista 64 is very save. just because they update doesn't mean it's not save (mostly the contrary actually).

i would put both on the same level. but obviously, ubuntu is no attack target platform, so even if it would be completely unsafe (which it isn't of course), no one would attack it.


btw archer7, i'd say the windows access control system is just as rock solid, and bit more advanced.

but in the end, both work, both work very well, and both are very save.. in the end, the majority of todays attacks on any computer system are ones where the user is at fault (see recent virus that got hyped up around 1. april). it was spread by users clicking on it and starting it.

 

How do you figure? UNIX and its derivatives (MacOSX, BSD, Solaris, etc.) have been far ahead of the curb in low-level access controls. And the Mandatory Access Controls policies developed by the National Security Agency have taken that to another state of being.

How is Windows more advanced in regards to this? It took Microsoft a while to even implement something that resembles UNIX controls, and then it was feeble at best. Even Vista's UAC is a slump in comparison. It is nowhere near the NSA's standards. In short, *nix has had a very strong foundation in access control security, and to quote my CSE professor: "Windows doesn't really have any."

I used to have a compilation of research papers relating to this, but I've lost the list.... My school's VPN client doesn't work on 64-bit, so I wouldn't be able to find them anyway. Well, that, and it's 3:43am and I am very, very tired.

 

ok. you won. sleep well.

 

I think davepermen was trying to make the point that you can lock down either Linux or Windows (any modern OS) if you know what you're doing. You can argue about the specifics but when it comes down to it no PC should be running directly connected to the internet so the thing to argue about is routers and firewalls, not client operating systems.

 

more or less, yep.

and switching to linux because of security on some home end system doesn't gain you much. best thing for some funky internet station (at home or outside) is windows with steadystate. *in love with that technology*. sadly it isn't well known

 

Actually if you're referring to SELinux (which comes supported by default with Debian Linux kernels), it's not relegated to high-end machines. That's what archer7 was referring to. I also side with archer7 on the Unix environment being so well-known and well-developed that it's hard to beat security wise, but I'm not trying to step into that argument. For the average user, with enough knowledge any OS can be a relatively safe environment

 

The are two notions of safety: one is addressing the probability you can be compromised (which is obviously smaller for less used OSs), and the second one is addressing your safety under the attacks targeting your computer.

Afaik, previous versions of Ubuntu (in dafault installation) were not very safe in the second sense. However, it is just my impression based on reading several articles.

 

the second one can be split into two: the one the user does the job of the hacker itself, and the other one, automatic behind the scenes attacks.


in your first point, obviously windows is the main target. but soon, a new main target may grow out of this: the iphone. always networked, always near-identical in installation, so far no security software components, and sold in millions.

for the second point. for behind the scenes attack, both windows and linux are at it's default installation very very save nowadays. obviously for linux it depends on the distro.

the third part: the how much does the os take care that a user can't compromise it's own system by accident/virusdeveloper. there, i think microsoft made the biggest advancements, just out of raw need (because of point one). but they're far from perfect.

 

Interesting, i agree that the most common issues related to the security is more based on the user handle than the OS, because if you are putting to risk if you are downloading files from unknown locations or web sites that could harm your system badly.

But also the way that the OS protects itself from getting hit by hackers or viruses is another concern, thats way the antivirus, firewalls programs tries to substitute the protection of the OS.

I'm getting more interested on the Ubuntu OS now, for the tweaking, faster and best appearance system, i just hope don't mess with my system while trying, but that is what for the backups was made for xD.

One last question, could Ubuntu run the programs that was made to an Windows enviroments or there are a few of them? My most common used programs are Office 2003 (or Openoffice xD), steam games (l4d, tf2), blizzards games (starcraft, warcraft3), photoshop, autocad, nero, hp quickplay (or a free blueray player program made for Ubuntu maybe?), etc..

I have been reading that there is also a way to test the Ubuntu without partioning the hard drive and run it as a program but i believe that it will take more resources using two OS at the same time, what is the best way to test it without messing the original OS?

Thanks again,

 

-Comes with Open Office
-Games work under Wine for sure (IIRC they are on the platinum list)
-GIMP ~ Photoshop
-CD/DVD Creator ~ nero
-MoviePlayer/Kaffeine/VLC ~ Quickplay

No idea about AutoCAD

 

I didn't choose to have linux on my laptop for security reasons. It was more that Windows just can't do what I need it to do in a clean or efficient manner. But still, I would never run a server on Windows. In my mind, a system that requires third-party defensive systems just to become viable has already admitted failure.

Just my $0.02. I'm a Windows user, just not 100%.

@Chris Redfield: Steam l4d on CrossOver Games installs and runs, but the Steam overlay doesn't work, and there are some really quirky bugs.

 

You will love using Ubuntu. i tweak mine the way i want it to look and trust me you love it if you are not one of those wants everything preconfigured