This is called a study that echo MuySeguridad our fellow, whose sentence is none other than Linux desktop security could be much better . We will not repeat here what I can read in the above link, but we will give some specific detail.
short, all this begins with a recognized security expert IOActive class=”notranslate”> has discovered more than 60 potential security holes ., All related to your desktop.
class=”notranslate”> are many times you are going to read the word sojourn desktop entry, then X.Org problems ranging from a Gclib, or GNOME and KDE . And not everything that has published a precaution found. That’s why we take a look at Assessing the Linux Desktop’s Security (PPT, 74 pages) is quite interesting, though not too understand what is there if one is not versed in computer codes.
For example, it highlights a problem with Qt with your developers disagree, so we have no problem to be published. Who is right here? or security expert Qt developers? As I say, is just one example, but there are many more, and no one thinks that this is something that affects a single distribution, desktop environment or application, because it is widespread.
By contrast, other problems have been reported and are solved or way of being, and many others remain unknown. There’s a bit of everything here. But do not be alarmed or shocked, although the author of the study stops short of recommending the use of dietlibc or uClibc detriment of glibc, which considers (free translation) “a monster superhinchado stale code.”
In short, navel-gazing it does not apply to software, whether free or proprietary. There are errors in all creation and you should put more attention on it , always taking as a reference the bonded labor. So we are left with the final note left on MuySeguridad: need to check if the model of development makes a difference in the resolution of these problems, or not. Today rock some self-criticism.yarpp-related-none” class=”yarpp-related
No related posts.