Linux Mint versus Ubuntu security

We shall never be afraid! Here's a short article comparing the default security level of Ubuntu versus Linux Mint, with focus on real-life practical implications and risks of selected choices, covering critical updates levels, the use of Apparmor and firewall, other security mechanisms, general tips and tricks, and more. In other words, enjoy and relax.

http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/linux-mint-ubuntu-security.html


Cheers,
Mrk

 

I'm not saying that a Linux desktop system without a MAC system is insecure (hey - I've switched to Arch which doesn't support them!). But I wonder why Canonical invests a lot of money and work into AppArmor development and enforces several profiles for critical applications by default if all that stuff is unnecessary in your opinion. Even Shuttleworth wouldn't throw money down the drain for good.

 

Thanks for putting a positive spin on security. Too many people obsess about Mint vs Ubuntu.

 

tlu, I believe the investment makes a lot of sense from the public perspective.
I guess Canonical did that to offer a hardened security alternative to SELinux as a selling point for the enterprise against RHEL.
Otherwise, IT security guys, who are normally fanatics about this, would say RHEL only for our data centers!
Or something like that.

However, I have been known to find most security apps unnecessary, so you can apply that to a wide range of products.

Mrk

 

Agree with the commercial box-tick requirement on AppArmor, after all, the enterprise/business area is a good profit centre for Canonical. AppArmor isn't really suitable for the majority of the Linux Mint user base in terms of looking after it in a way that will remain useful to them.