>You're right, you caught me anon. There's actually 1252 open doors
ESL? I said of known vulnerabilities Debian
had 8755 vulerabilities (most of any OS, 1252 top 10% severity), past tense. You don't understand tense
but it gets worse.
Your sarcastic misread implies you're so lost
you don't know what CVEs are. You're confusing CVEs with open vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities tracked by CVEs are fixed all the time.
So you're so ignorant of infosec that, when you said "the reason there are thousands of cves," you actually thought Debian had 8755 open vulnerabilities.
You're security-retarded. You repeatedly don't get basic facts, terms, and concepts of entry-level security but talk down to others like your opinions matter. No wonder you think your tranny OS will protect you from state-sponsored attackers. It's safe and effective, shills said so!
Unpublished and open doors probably scale with published and closed ones, implying Debian Linux has the most open doors. The exact number's unknowable, relative ratios are easier estimated.
<The last security and monthly quality rollup for Windows 7 on the Microsoft Update Catalog was 2 weeks ago
>bootleg system updates
<Microsoft Update Catalog
>bootleg system updates
Unbelievably retarded. The
Microsoft Update Catalog was created by Microsoft. You have no shame to embarrass yourself this much.
>With one you have infinite visibility on the code, with the other you have zero visibility on the code.
Invisibility's protective through security by obscurity. Can't attack what you can't see. Source code maps weak points.
Linux is C. Around 6 of 28.7 million programmers know C, see "Global Developer Population 2024" and "Career Karma."
Windows binaries are black boxes. Specialist coders, maybe top 0.1%, can reverse engineer backdoors. The skills needed are at least 200 times rarer.
It's over 20,000 times harder to find the backdoors as understanding what's reverse engineered takes at least 100 times longer than reading C.
That's why Windows vulnerabilities are found by MS, not outside attackers. I had to go 75 CVEs deep to find one not found by MS. For azure-c-shared-utility,
an open source library, because the outside attack surface for Windows is the open source parts. Windows 11 is still a security nightmare, as MS made it one. There's no Recall-tier spyware on Windows 7.
Freetards (not all Linux users, just your type) who don't think beyond "open source = more secure" are why crypto investors get scammed by open source smart contracts on Ethereum, Solana, Polkadot, Algorand, and Cardano. Hackers read the code then exploit it to rip off freetards.
>The number of developers makes absolutely no difference to the likelihood of one of the projects being compromised
Lmao. You're probability-retarded.
How does compromise happen if not by developers? Vulnerabilities don't come out of thin air, retard. They're added by developers. The more developers, the more vulnerabilities added, on accident and on purpose.
>Once again you don't seem to understand what it means to "move the goalposts". And you don't seem to understand what an analogy is.
You thought your tranny OS protected you from state-level attackers so you talked down to a Windows 7 user. This was the topic.
You couldn't negate my facts, sidetracking to vulnerabilities in
fucking Google shit. That's not "an analogy," that's moving the goalposts to another planet.
>Russian and chinese hackers don't compromise your system just because they want to
I said if the state wants you pwned, it doesn't matter what you use, you are fucked." I did not say they want to "just because."
They want to compromise valuable targets like multinational companies that run Linux. They don't care about
>>973243 or his Windows 7 gaming.
>I'm well aware of the ZX situation.
You chomped my bait hook, line, and sinker, proving you disingenuous. I noticed you're ignorant with an ego, so I laid a trap, swapping the letters from XZ to ZX to ensnare this lie. You repeated ZX
twice (not a typo), claiming you're "well aware of it" while proving you aren't.
Lmao! That's all anyone needs to know about you.
>You think because it's the most valuable piece of software to compromise it's necessarily the most likely to be compromised
Not just because of that, don't tell me what I think. It's one risk factor in a broader analysis.
Another? Debian Linux had 8755 CVEs published, more than any OS.
Another?
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/14/1055894/us-military-sofware-linux-kernel-open-source/
<For example, Huawei is currently the biggest contributor to the Linux kernel.
<Another contributor works for Positive Technologies, a Russian cybersecurity firm that—like Huawei—has been sanctioned by the US government, says Aitel.
Another? State-sponsored intelligence agencies like the NSA are all over Linux.
Another? The Linux Foundation had 15600 people and over 1400 companies contributing to just the kernel in 2017. It's higher now. Their names and accounts and commit histories are public. Those 1400 plus companies all have something to gain from compromising Linux. Anyone can target them with bribes or blackmail, especially state-sponsored attackers.
Another? Around 6 million programmers know C and Linux is C with public code.
Another? Linux users attack Windows 7 users for mentioning it. Beneficiaries of Linux backdoors gain from this and would be as "desperate to shill for newer versions of tranny OS" (
>>973514) as you. You're probably a freetard making Linux your personality to talk down to people like
>>973243 but the consistency and magnitude of general hostility is suspicious on a slow site with federal attention.
Another? Linux had 27.8 million lines of public code in just the kernel in 2020. It has a mile-wide attack surface.
>I don't think we're going to move past this.
At last, you're finally right. Windows 7's convincable Linux migrants switched out ages ago. Windows 7 users in 2024 have a will of diamond, they've heard and withstood your shilling for years.
You're wasting hours of time you could better spend than by burying yourself in fallacies.
>You're spewing numbers to be as disingenuous as possible.
<Numbers
<Disingenuous
Lmao. Your narrative isn't disingenuous, but numbers are! Get
filthy facts and
foolish figures out of here.
[Expand Post]
Do you hear how stupid you sound?
>You either don't understand how CVEs work
You literally thought CVEs were open vulnerabilities.
You argued Debian Linux CVEs were inconsequential as you didn't know they had severity scores (1252 had CVSS scores from 9-10, in the top 10% most consequential vulnerabilites, 1.43 times worse than if they were equally distributed).
You never heard of a CVE before this argument.
>are deliberately misrepresenting CVEs to push your narrative
Your narrative was Debian Linux's "thousands of CVEs is because the vast majority of them are inconsequential."
I showed 1252 have CVSS scores from 9-10, in the top 10% most consequential vulnerabilities, 1.43 times worse than if they were equally distributed.
I showed your own argument defeats you. I showed you embarrassed yourself.
You deliberately misrepresented CVEs, which you don't understand, to push your narrative. I broke your narrative with facts. With numbers.
>When you blindly state that debian has a 1000 critical vulnerabilities in it that is what you're putting into peoples heads who don't know any better.
No, that's what got into your head because you don't understand "had" is past tense, don't understand what CVEs are, and confused them for open vulnerabilities. Don't generalize your stupidity. You being an idiot doesn't make others idiotic.
>No it isn't evidence of it being compromised
Your definition of evidence doesn't matter when every court, every dictionary, and every encyclopedia disagree.
>any time you have evidence of Linux being compromised it gets fixed.
A