@SlowCoder
I only possess 1 laptop and i prefer this way for simplicity.
Personally i encrypt my drives and use vpn.
C
CrazedNerd
Guest
Privacy and security is always up to the user.
lol, yeah, there's always a little bit of the knowledge gap issue...like, how many people here can say that they fully understand what The Wizard does, or how easily he can see your info?! Certainly not me, i just figure he's not doing this just as a honeypot for our info to cast a spell on us...and at this point (i've been using the internet for 21 years) i'm a little apathetic about controlling who gets my information, or retroactively getting data companies to erase me from the web. I trust that I can't trust people, but then i also trust they typically have some loving, altruistic, or "get max benefit" capacity like i do...until i see them acting in a way that contradicts that very strongly.
It's people folks! Sooner or later bill gates, or someone in big tech will hit that delete button on whatever
The most private is the one whose kernel you wrote yourself and nobody has access to its source code.
Nothing wrong with this setup. Do what makes you feel safest.
The issue is, that you can download one of a number of privacy distros, which are more niche/specialized, probably not new user friendly, but include privacy browsers, TOR, etc. Or you can download any mainstream distro and install the same browsers and tools. You're you really getting anything unique from a privacy based distro.
@SlowCoder,
This is a very important point! And one of the reasons i will probably be a Linux lover maybe for life. No limitations!
This way i can just choose a distro i like and that's it.
But aren't some distros owned by companies who handle data a little different?
For instance, Linux Mint states they respect (user privacy data), and only handle statistical stuff. Ubuntu does not respect privacy the same way.
I read similar statements for Zorin OS - Parrot "Home Edition" and Manjaro.
Please let me know your point of view on this point?
Ofc i will go over these 3 distros and see which i like best.
I've not heard of any truly egregious cases of telemetry gathering in the Linux community, where actual user data is exposed. All cases I'm aware of are anonymized and tend to be limited to error reporting or pings. This data can help with development and management of resources. However, users should be notified, and be allowed to disable this telemetry as desired. Zorin OS is guilty of nondisclosure. But Ubuntu allows the user to disable telemetry during install. If there ever was an egregious case, the community would quickly be informed and that distro no longer trusted.
Mint is my chosen OS, and I don't remember any telemetry coming from it. However, I moved from the mainline Mint to LMDE to further remove myself from Canonical. Not that I specifically have a problem with Canonical, but they are a company, and as a company may not necessarily be trusted to have the best interest of the community at heart.
C
CrazedNerd
Guest
Yes, using the internet involves somebody putting information about "you" into a spreadsheet somewhere. You can throw off your scent with VPNs etc, but in the end someone is watching you. Ubuntu does ask permission for location serves and fixing bugs, so I don’t really get too worried about canonical.
@SlowCoder
English is not my native language. "Zorin OS is guilty of nondisclosure." means they respect user private data, right?
So LMDE being Debian based is a private distro too?
If so will give it a go.
Stuff that i read from some sources, for me, it's enough not to trust Ubuntu. Specially after being hacked in the past.
Now i take privacy more seriously, and windows 11 for me will be for some quick tasks i might need to do.
@CrazedNerd
Indeed. Windows 10 itself is a spying tool!
But isn't a very well secured Linux with a well built firewall, Mullvad VPN, and fingerprint add-ons for Firefox and other private browsers enough to reduce this? At the browsing level it should block a lot, but for the OS itself it comes down to a lot of knowledge and time.
Please let me know your view here.
No. It means they collected data without consent. Which means they did NOT respect.
Linux Mint has their mainline distribution, which is based on Ubuntu. They have a separate distribution called Linux Mint Debian Edition, which is based directly off Debian. I believe both of them respect privacy.
I would say Ubuntu can be trusted. They have done well communicating with the community, and their latest version defaults to no telemetry.
Use the distro that works for you.
Make sure the firewall is set to Deny Incoming and Allow Outgoing, you can also use Opensnitch to fine tune outgoing connections.
Use the Tor Browser or Librewolf to browse the web.
Only install packages from your distros repos.
Only install packages that you actually need.
For the truly paranoid take a look at:
Linux Hardening Guide
Make sure the firewall is set to Deny Incoming and Allow Outgoing, you can also use Opensnitch to fine tune outgoing connections.
Use the Tor Browser or Librewolf to browse the web.
Only install packages from your distros repos.
Only install packages that you actually need.
For the truly paranoid take a look at:
Linux Hardening Guide
C
CrazedNerd
Guest
With security, there's no "enough". Privacy kinda sucks if you think about it too much.
@SlowCoder
I will consider only this 3: Parrot "Home Edition" - Manjaro - LMDE Linux.
Do you think a "Smart Firewall" physical device will provide further anti-backdoor protection?
Like this one:
Ubiquiti Unifi Security Gateway (USG)
Security Gateway - Ubiquiti Store United States
Reliable security with high‐performance routing technology.
store.ui.com
Or virtual software configured well is enough?
Last edited:
I can't really speak to any external firewalls. I've always considered a soft firewall to be sufficient.
The benefit of a soft firewall is that it goes wherever your machine goes, without extra hardware.
Besides, I reiterate, a system is only as secure as you make it. That includes external firewall and secured router devices.
The benefit of a soft firewall is that it goes wherever your machine goes, without extra hardware.
Besides, I reiterate, a system is only as secure as you make it. That includes external firewall and secured router devices.
Condobloke
Well-Known Member
Amen.
@SlowCoder
I will install an extra soft firewall and tweak it as much as needed!
For my home setup i just wanted to know if an external firewall would improve security more and be justified...
I know, and i have this in my near future plans.
I have a hardware (SOHO type of deal) firewall.
It's powered down, needs to be updated, and I've not bothered with it for quite a while now.
Things are just pretty secure by default. I don't need the extra overhead.
It's powered down, needs to be updated, and I've not bothered with it for quite a while now.
Things are just pretty secure by default. I don't need the extra overhead.
I'm not sure about your ISP, but my ISP provides a firewall as part of the router. So I'm already as secure as my ISP wants me to be, which is usually allow outbound connections, deny incoming connections. So, do I need another firewall on top of that? I don't think so. But every layer of security makes you stronger.
A good case use of a separate personal hardware firewall would be if I was creating a personal LAN, and didn't necessarily want to configure firewalls on all my network connected devices.
So, it won't hurt you to have a hardware firewall, if you feel it's necessary or helpful. Or if you just want to futz around with it.
