This person is not one bit constructive, and is a privacy community grifter.
Claims all kinds of CVE nonsense and large LoC code nonsense but ignores them for Windows and MacOS, instead promotes these two OSes over Linux based OSes.
His other claims regarding exploits are mostly resolved by running trusted code on machine, and so it requires either socially engineered malware installations, or some low level rootkit that bypasses all of it. Windows? Yeah that OS whose admin permissions can be elevated and bypassed by a Razer gaming USB mouse.
The other crap he harps about is memory unsafe code programming. Yeah, NT kernel is surely safer, a 2 decade old borg.
He ignores the existence of AppArmor as well, for some reason, but Windows and MacOS are more secure!
Somehow, Flatpak is bad but Bubblewrap, part of Flatpak, is good. Cites flatkill.org as proof.
Someone who uses “CCP Pooh -20 credit score” stickers in Telegram groups he admins is not worth taking seriously.
The article is indeed one-sided and often makes exaggerated claims.
One example: "This is in contrast to a rolling release model, in which users can update as soon as the software is released, thereby acquiring all security fixes up to that point. "
This ignores that facts that new releases are the only source of new vulnerabilities.
Plus, new vulnerabilities are still to be reported. A 0-day in the wild is usually worse than a published vulnerability: at least you can learn about the latter and take decisions on how to handle it.
They also ignore effort of some distributions to backport fixes to their supported version of the software as well as promoting the maintenance-mode or ESR releases of software.
Also, security patches are usually patched and released earlier right on rolling release distros right? I know they are when its a critical vulnerability.
This person is not one bit constructive, and is a privacy community grifter.
Claims all kinds of CVE nonsense and large LoC code nonsense but ignores them for Windows and MacOS, instead promotes these two OSes over Linux based OSes.
His other claims regarding exploits are mostly resolved by running trusted code on machine, and so it requires either socially engineered malware installations, or some low level rootkit that bypasses all of it. Windows? Yeah that OS whose admin permissions can be elevated and bypassed by a Razer gaming USB mouse.
The other crap he harps about is memory unsafe code programming. Yeah, NT kernel is surely safer, a 2 decade old borg.
He ignores the existence of AppArmor as well, for some reason, but Windows and MacOS are more secure!
Somehow, Flatpak is bad but Bubblewrap, part of Flatpak, is good. Cites flatkill.org as proof.
Someone who uses “CCP Pooh -20 credit score” stickers in Telegram groups he admins is not worth taking seriously.
The article is indeed one-sided and often makes exaggerated claims.
One example: "This is in contrast to a rolling release model, in which users can update as soon as the software is released, thereby acquiring all security fixes up to that point. "
This ignores that facts that new releases are the only source of new vulnerabilities.
Plus, new vulnerabilities are still to be reported. A 0-day in the wild is usually worse than a published vulnerability: at least you can learn about the latter and take decisions on how to handle it.
They also ignore effort of some distributions to backport fixes to their supported version of the software as well as promoting the maintenance-mode or ESR releases of software.
Also, security patches are usually patched and released earlier right on rolling release distros right? I know they are when its a critical vulnerability.