Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Does Mint have Security issues?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 pcpunk

pcpunk

  • Members
  • 5,277 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Local time:03:21 AM

Posted 17 February 2015 - 01:49 PM

I'm sure you big-dogs have all read this, but for the noobs this will be great!  as usual howtogeek has some great news feeds.  Hope you enjoy this one:  http://www.howtogeek.com/176495/ubuntu-developers-say-linux-mint-is-insecure-are-they-right/


sBCcBvM.png

Created by Mike_Walsh

 

KDE, Ruler of all Distro's

eps2.4_m4ster-s1ave.aes_pcpunk_leavemehere

 


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


m

#2 NickAu

NickAu

    Bleepin' Fish Doctor


  • Moderator
  • 11,723 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:127.0.0.1 Australia
  • Local time:07:21 PM

Posted 17 February 2015 - 03:39 PM

Pc I strongly doubt that you or I as home users have anything to worry about. 



#3 Kaosu

Kaosu

  • Members
  • 173 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:21 AM

Posted 17 February 2015 - 04:57 PM

This argument was made (what seems to be forever ago) due to how Mint holds some updates back. Since the goal of Mint is to provide a smooth user experience, it makes sense that they would hold back packages that are notorious for causing major problems for some users. It isn't like these packages are never updated, they just aren't updated as soon as they become available. Additionally, it is trivial to modify the behavior of Mint's update system to install all packages as they become available. Does this make Mint less secure? Well, not really. You still have the choice to choose security over stability with a few mouse clicks if that is important to you. In reality, this makes Mint a little more robust for users that value stability over all else. If you want to fault Mint for giving you the choice, then shouldn't you also fault Debian for taking a little (pretty minor) extra time to backport security fixes to older packages? Don't you think it would be silly to complain about Debian doing this when they release security fixes just as fast as any other major distribution? Mint doesn't make the packages impossible to install, it just chooses a default option that works for the majority of its installation base. However, feel free to change how Mint handles updates if you would like to have the held packages pushed to you as they become available, making Mint just as secure as Ubuntu.

 

My personal opinion would be to install the held packages as they become available, because security would be my primary concern. However, as Nick said above, most of the security fixes that are in these packages probably wouldn't truly affect a home (single user system) user. When a major vulnerability is found, Mint tends to push the update to its users without worrying about stability, they just don't tend to worry about vulnerabilities that would require local access to the software to be exploited (since most of their installation base are single user systems). Like I said above, different people have different security needs, but Mint is capable of meeting the needs of both types of users with a little tweaking.

 

It has always bothered me that Ubuntu developers are so anti-community that they have tried to publicly deface other projects instead of embracing them. Ubuntu doesn't really contribute back very much to the open-source community, but they have no problem taking the hard work of others to line their pockets with money. I'm not anti-Ubuntu, and I will still recommend the distribution to new users, but I am slowly starting to dislike what the company behind the name represents.


Edited by Kaosu, 17 February 2015 - 05:04 PM.


#4 pcpunk

pcpunk
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 5,277 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Local time:03:21 AM

Posted 17 February 2015 - 05:31 PM

Pc I strongly doubt that you or I as home users have anything to worry about. 

Yes, the article says that, I just thought it was a good read.  Probably has been around here in cheesemakers corner or something but we always got newbies right, hopefully!

 

Kaosu

I agree as stated above just thought it's a good read, simple, and as I remember-unbiased.  I will however, as Nick stated, just leave as is.  I am a very lite user and am confident that all this won't affect me.  I liked your post though thanks!

 

I did however set to get all these updates on Mate-17 for about six months and had no issues.  I did so at this site: https://sites.google.com/site/easylinuxtipsproject/mint-mate-first#TOC-Apply-all-available-updates


Edited by pcpunk, 17 February 2015 - 05:41 PM.

sBCcBvM.png

Created by Mike_Walsh

 

KDE, Ruler of all Distro's

eps2.4_m4ster-s1ave.aes_pcpunk_leavemehere

 


#5 Guest_hollowface_*

Guest_hollowface_*

  • Guests
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 17 February 2015 - 07:26 PM

I'd say Mint's approach is more professional. Thanks for sharing pcpunk.



#6 cat1092

cat1092

    Bleeping Cat


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,887 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina, USA

Posted 19 February 2015 - 05:14 AM

 

 

 http://www.howtogeek.com/176495/ubuntu-developers-say-linux-mint-is-insecure-are-they-right/

 

This is a 2013 article, no news in it, and was based on Linux MInt 15 (look at the pic & see). Everyone else has the bases covered, I'm just chipping in because I ended up having to defending my & my wife's use of LInux Mint a long time ago, actually this wasn't the first article. On another forum, was defending myself (and we have one here who knows this, if he remembers) because someone opened a Topic about 'Linux Mint Insecure for Transactions'. 

 

This was an overblown issue by 'tech journalists' to make headlines, so that folks would visit their sites & click a few ads. That's all. During this time of 'insecurity', I was making online purchases with Linux Mint 16 & later 16, so was my wife, and we had no problems. Believe me if so, I'd not be running Mint today, would move on to other waters, possibly CentOS, which I was once interested in, but has a steeper learning curve. It's basically RedHat for free with some great extras that doesn't make the final cut. 

 

 

 

 Ubuntu doesn't really contribute back very much to the open-source community, but they have no problem taking the hard work of others to line their pockets with money. I'm not anti-Ubuntu, and I will still recommend the distribution to new users, but I am slowly starting to dislike what the company behind the name represents.

 

Kaosu, I couldn't agree with you more, regardless of who likes or dislikes what I'm about to say, Ubuntu has became more commercialized than ever & should change their name, because the distro no longer stands for what it once did, 'humanity towards others'. Yes, they may get involved in a project for the tax write-off, but look at all they've in the past two years they've took from their user base. Took away Ubuntu One, free music & more, and at the same time added Amazon adverts to boost their income & Unity to frustrate & run users off. I'm constantly having to remove Amazon out of my Google search engine list profile, placed there by Ubuntu. 

 

I suppose due to some of these actions, they wanted users to be focused more on any alleged shortcomings in Mint's security, which were false, rather than their business tactics, which are true. While the Amazon adverts can be disabled & possibly removed, it wasn't the Ubuntu developers who openly published how to. It was 3rd party sites that believes in Free Software whom did. Under the Free Software Foundation's rules of a free OS, Ubuntu isn't one, not by the founder's original criteria. If they still have it listed as 'Free Software' today, they were likely paid to state it. 

 

More on Ubuntu:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(operating_system)

 

And the truth behind the meaning of the Ubuntu name, which Canonical doesn't hold to any longer. The video to the left of Nelson Mandela shows it's Ubuntu Linux connection. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28philosophy%29#History_of_the_concept

 

The philosophy of Ubuntu hasn't changed, however the brand of OS has, it's not worthy of continual bearing of the name of Southern Africans. Rather an insult to the great Ubuntu name. 

 

Cat


Performing full disc images weekly and keeping important data off of the 'C' drive as generated can be the best defence against Malware/Ransomware attacks, as well as a wide range of other issues. 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users