Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Linux Distros: When It Absolutely, Positively Has to Be Secure

Filed under
Linux

If you use Linux instead of Microsoft Windows, its free availability may well be a deciding factor. But the fact that virus and malware contamination are less likely to take down your Linux computers are no doubt essential influencing factors as well.

But does using a more popular Linux distro like Cononical's Ubuntu make your system more or less vulnerable than a Linux-on-a-stick variety such as Puppy Linux? More likely than not, if you use any Linux distro, you will compute in a relatively strong security envelope.

Still, some aspects of the open source community are pushing out hybrid Linux distributions that claim to be more secure than your otherwise plain-vanilla Linux distro of choice. So if you want a more hardened Linux configuration, you have options.

rest here




More in Tux Machines

Leftovers: Gaming

Leftovers: Software

today's howtos

ACPI, kernels and contracts with firmware

This ends up being a pain in the neck in the x86 world, but it could be much worse. Way back in 2008 I wrote something about why the Linux kernel reports itself to firmware as "Windows" but refuses to identify itself as Linux. The short version is that "Linux" doesn't actually identify the behaviour of the kernel in a meaningful way. "Linux" doesn't tell you whether the kernel can deal with buffers being passed when the spec says it should be a package. "Linux" doesn't tell you whether the OS knows how to deal with an HPET. "Linux" doesn't tell you whether the OS can reinitialise graphics hardware. Read more