Writeup from 2022 that I assume is mostly still valid. TLDR:
- Mainstream Linux is less secure than macOS, Windows, and ChromeOS. (Elsewhere: “[iOS/Android] were designed with security as a foundational component. They were built with sandboxing, verified boot, modern exploit mitigations and more from the start. As such, they are far more locked down than other platforms and significantly more resistant to attacks.”)
- Move as much activity outside the core maximum privilege OS as possible.
- OP doesn’t mention immutable OS, but I assume they help a lot.
- Create a threat model and use it to guide your time and money investments in secure computing.
Once you have hardened the system as much as you can, you should follow good privacy and security practices:
- Disable or remove things you don’t need to minimise attack surface.
- Stay updated. Configure a cron job or init script to update your system daily.
- Don’t leak any information about you or your system, no matter how minor it may seem.
- Follow general security and privacy advice.
This is a Qubes ad.
And that’s fine, but why Qubes insists it’s not Linux while booting the Linux kernel, running xen, using xfce as the primary desktop, and being listed on disteowatch seems like a weird marketing choice to me. Your primary audience knows what Linux is, so what is the motivation behind claiming “Qubes is not Linux”?
Freebsd is also on distrowatch. Qubes is not desktop Linux because it doesnt function like normal linux. It uses the Linux kernel, but in a similar way to how Android isn’t Linux, neither is Qubes.
Fair enough. I guess I didn’t distill my comment before writing it down.
The problem I see with op’s “Linux isn’t secure” comment (without getting all territorial about it) is that the solution touted by Qubes is already a solution in wide use in several Linux distros, meaning the compartmentalization of apps in constrained environments is already a mechanic used in flatpack, snap, even docker.
The fact that Qubes is a secure approach should be the focus, not the “our potassium is superior to all other countries” vibe from this post.
Understandable. Though the security difference between Flatpak and Xen VMs, or even between Flatpak and Snap, is pretty big. Flatpak is mostly sandboxed to provide a consistent run environment to apps across distros, and id say 50% or more of the Flathub apps seem to have weak default sandbox security settings. Snap does a better job security-wise of reducing sandbox escape potential, but is still a far cry away from the containerization of Qubes.