I want to make Linux my main OS. I’ve used Windows for decades. Since Vista or 7, the Windows security model is this, from what I understand:
- unprivileged programs have limited/no ability to do scary things to your computer. they might be able to read some data, but it’s not going to implant malware in the boot sequence for Windows.
- if a program wants escalation, it triggers a UAC popup and the user has to accept it. Remote programs cannot accept UAC on a physical person’s behalf. Escalated programs have admin level control and can do the scary things.
- As with any OS, there may be privilege escalation vulnerabilities that escalate (1) into (2).
I’ve only had Windows malware a few times since Win7, and the entry point was fairly avoidable. (Running a sketchy EXE, and a possible drive-by malware install via an advertisement. I could never prove the latter.)
I have never run a password on my Windows machines.
On any system, physical access is game over.
On Linux, the password is paramount. I’ve tried to understand the security model and I keep failing. Synthesizing from arch wiki
SSH
Equivalent to local physical access as the user. If it’s a sudoers or root account, it can do scary things. Not a threat if ssh is disabled or well secured (password or key pairs).
If a network has a well configured firewall (on the router), it should block ssh requests from outside the network unless the admin specifically wants SSH outside the network.
As with any OS, there may be bugs that allow remote access outside of SSH.
Local login / password prompts to physical users
Without a password, you can’t escalate to root and install new software. Some software, often dealing with hardware (smartctl) requires sudo/root to run.
Encrypted drives
Passwords can decrypt drives if they are encrypted.
Keyrings
Some DEs (KDE) offer a ‘keyring’ that stores passwords. It’s locked/encrypted with a password, usually the same as the login password.
So what am I missing? Is Windows + UAC + no password secure? What is Linux protecting us from by using passwords?
I think the basic premise of this question, that Windows and Linux somehow have a different foundational security model that is or isn’t based on passwords, is not really true. Passwords play more or less the same role for any modern operating system – be it Linux, MacOS, Android, iOS, etc.
The only major difference is that instead of UAC, Linux has a variety of options (sudo, policykit, run0), which are implemented differently across different distributions. If your privileged user doesn’t have a password, in some cases this could lead to any program being able to elevate their privilege quietly, unlike UAC.
However, in many distributions you can set up a user with a password and enable passwordless local login, which would be almost equivalent to windows with no password.
Answering your question directly, the major threat to most consumer users is physical compromise or theft of device. Your statement that “physical access is game over” is not entirely accurate: disk encryption with a password is a very strong protection against unauthorized data access, but you need to use a password (doesn’t matter if it’s Linux or Windows).
I think this is the most important part. There really isn’t any protection against random processes trying to do some version of
exec sudo $0except for the fact that it requires a password.it always baffles me when people set up disk encryption with the TPM instead of a password
I understand it. Who wants to use two passwords to access their computer?
I only enter one password for LUKS and have kde autologin
personally, i have my system is completely off and i boot it up, i just use my luks password then the system is set to auto log into my environment (only one password required)–then if my system is asleep, when i wake it up it will just go to my password manager where i can use my fingerprint or user password.
deleted by creator