Do you use Gnome or KDE Plasma?
Do you use Gnome or KDE Plasma?
I'm relatively new to the linux space, I was introduced by the steam deck which uses kde, and it's pretty similar to windows in terms of how it works so that's the DE i'd be leaning towards when I eventually switch. I've never used gnome so i'm not sure if it'd be worth using I guess?
So I'm just looking for some input from the community, do you use Gnome or Plasma, why do you use it, and what's kind of like a pros and cons kinda thing between the two?
You're viewing a single thread.
I recommend GNOME from a purely security perspective. Currently, "GNOME is the only desktop that secures privileged wayland protocols like screencopy." It also has a nice permission system for (dis)allowing microphone, camera, and location access. I wish the developers were more open to encouraging customization of the certain GUI elements, like KDE. KDE Plasma does not protect against screen capture, though it is on their radar.
it's ok. I don't need protection from myself.
While this is true, if your pc is secure and you don't install crap then this is not going to be a major issue for the vast majority of people. Both desktops have their own security flaws but always the number one flaw is the user.
Keep systems up to date, do not side load software from outside well managed official package systems, use strong passwords, use encryption etc. This counts for far more than the various security flaws and fixes that constantly come and go with any system. If you don't give bad actors a route into your system to exploit flaws then you are generally OK.
Like the screen copy flaw would need someone installing software that would exploit that - possible but unlikely in a well managed environment with a good robust distro.
And it's worth saying that generally Linux remains less targeted than Windows and Mac for malware. That does not mean people should then be lax in their behaviour but it's a better starting point for being secure if you look after your Linux install properly.
The weakest link of any secured system is the user. I know that will never change, especially as computers/software become more complicated over time. But I don't understand why many people argue that "since the user is the weakest link, we don't need more secure systems, we need better users." We need both.
Explaination
For anyone who suggests that a user can "just be smarter and not install malware" think about this: do you check read all the commits to the software you install, for each update, and then compile from source. The answers is no. And I don't think we should need to.
Linux is not secure, it is still meant for tinkerers and by design is very open. This is one of my favorite aspects of Linux, just how open it is. The result though is an insecure system with many attack vectors that are hard to protect against.
For example, I recently wanted to patch a game for mod support. This required me to run a script that i didnt fully understand. I did my best to read it and nothing looked suspicious, but I couldn't fully understand because I am not a modder for that game.
This script could have done a number of things:
- Added a fake sudo script to the path in the user's home resulting in privilege escalation.
- Created a user Systemd service that logs everything added to the clipboard or keylog, since that is also possible on Wayland with an LD_PRELOAD attack.
- Create a Systemd service that records the screen to grab passwords.
- Edit the user's .bashrc file.
- Delete/encrypt every file owned by the user.
- Read and exfiltrate all app data from the $HOME
- Or a combination of multiple other things.
The solution is sandboxing, permission system, secure defaults, and transparency to the user. And of course a way to disable security checks for tinkerers.
My point is that the perfect user does not exist. We (inevitably) use our computers to do all sorts of niche things, the perfect user does not even turn their PC on.