Like it’s trying to convince people Linux is inherently vulnerable.
I’m typing this reply from a machine running KDE Plasma on top of Linux Mint 22.
I’m not sure what precisely what you mean by “inherently” but I’d like to point that “Linux” has security problems all over the place; the kernel has issues, the DEs have issues, the applications have issues. It’s more secure than Windows but that’s not a very high bar.
It’s kind of an iffy assertion. That’s maybe the number of files it scans looking for misconfigurations it can exploit, but I’d bet there’s a lot of overlap in the potential contents of those files (either because of cascading configurations, or because they’re looking for the same file in slightly different places to mitigate distro differences). So the number of possible exploits is likely far fewer.
No mention of transmission methods as far as I understand the article
The whole thing sounds fishy. Like it’s trying to convince people Linux is inherently vulnerable.
Like WTF?
I’m typing this reply from a machine running KDE Plasma on top of Linux Mint 22.
I’m not sure what precisely what you mean by “inherently” but I’d like to point that “Linux” has security problems all over the place; the kernel has issues, the DEs have issues, the applications have issues. It’s more secure than Windows but that’s not a very high bar.
It’s kind of an iffy assertion. That’s maybe the number of files it scans looking for misconfigurations it can exploit, but I’d bet there’s a lot of overlap in the potential contents of those files (either because of cascading configurations, or because they’re looking for the same file in slightly different places to mitigate distro differences). So the number of possible exploits is likely far fewer.
They have an “attack flow” diagram that seems to indicate a hacker installing it directly through a known vulnerability.