Ubuntu with Firewall enabled vs Windows with Comodo enabled

Which one is more secure? I have seen people say Ubuntu has all features that Comodo Firewall offers. Is that true?

You can’t really compare them. It’s very different OS. Having said that Ubuntu is way more secure but this comes down to the general security architecture. While Windows is not as strong… It is way better now plus with CIS it is very solid with the right settings.

It’s what you need and want to use… That’s what matters…

How secure is Windows when you install an application?

Are you asking me? 88)

It can vary… Dep on the file (trusted or not)… Dep on user check (scan the file)… Dep on sandbox and how it installed like fully virtual to test it further if you Q it’s source, other PC security settings. It all comes down to the user at the end.

Or you mean something else? ???

I was asking every security-conscious Windows-user. Thank you for the reply. :slight_smile:

“Dep on the file (trusted or not)”.
Can you install an application without trusting it? Nope. That is the huge security-hole in Windows. In order to install an application, you must grant it unrestricted access to your system. Sane or insane? IMO, the latter.

“It all comes down to the user at the end.”
Could it be worse?

Different systems need different security-features. Here is an overview of Ubuntu’s security-features: Security/Features - Ubuntu Wiki

W-well yeah? I can install an application without trusting it… =S I don’t do it but it would be possible… just don’t trust something and install it… ???

Really? You run the installer, UAC pops up, asking you to grant the application administrator privileges (= trust it), or not. If you don’t trust it, the installation will be canceled before it has begun.

I turned off UAC completely 88) I guess CIS HIPS has replaced it. And on my laptop I’ve intentionally installed malware etc so yeah I can install things without trusting them, even if I get pop-ups. It’s not something I do on my main system but it is something that I am capable of which is what I am trying to point out.

If you turn off UAC (which is of course not recommended) you make the decision to trust it or not by clicking or not clicking on the program-file, without actually knowing if it requires administrator-privileges or not. Sure, if you use CIS, it will behave differently.
Even on your laptop you have to “trust” any installer to be able to successfully run it (install the application). It’s not really relevant that you don’t care about the consequences (since, I guess, you have nothing there you would not want to loose) and are willing to format the drive at any time.

All I’m saying is that just because you decide to run something that doesn’t mean you trust it. For example the Livestreamer software which I use for twitch since it’s the only thing to make things stop stuttering, I did not trust it at all, still don’t, which is why I look closely on the HIPS pop-ups. If you by rule trust something when installing it, then it’s impossible to take a chance, you don’t take a chance if you trust something yet you can take a chance with software. However this is off-topic is it not? I hardly believe this topic was meant for finding the role of trust in installing software and whether or not you can install software without trusting it.

Technically speaking, no, it isn’t true that Ubuntu has all the features that Comodo Firewall offers. It can be made so, but no, not by default. Nonetheless, it does not entail that one is more secure than the other. Security-wise, there exist no such thing as an impenetrable system at this time of writing, but it is fairly measurable.

Though there exists a handful of malware designed for linux, very few of those (if there are even any) have successfully spread themselves across systems. It’s almost if not always the user’s fault rather than the system’s as in this case:

Thing is, it’s rare for anyone using linux to want to install a program out of the repositories because:

  1. It’s easier and safer to install in the repos
  2. Requests to include in repos (if found legitimate) are easily done within a short period of time.
  3. Windows-users (most of them, at least) who migrated to linux almost always ask about malware first thing in forums and are given the answer to install in the repos and you should be safe.

(The last one’s a personal opinion, though.) I even carried my own paranoia down to linux which is why I run a program in RAM inside a dummy OS for the first few days before actually installing it.

Piggyback malware (ones I hate the most) pretends to be a legitimate program and operates just as well as a legit program should, but performs in the background a set of commands that compromises security. Rogue software is an example or a “tampered” Plants vs zombies game that hid a rootkit in its install folder. Trust is exploitable.

Linux malware operates the same way, but like I said, it’s rare for anyone to install anything outside the repos and are most likely unaccustomed and uninitiated to Linux. I mean, isn’t the first thing we learn when dealing with an OS is how do we install this and that?

I suppose what JoWa was saying if I understood correctly is that you give a program some level of trust when you install it. Providing a program “the benefit of doubt” is almost as if to say “I’ll trust you just this one time, but if you make a wrong move, out you go.”

I don’t think it’s off-topic though because we’re basically making a comparison between Ubuntu and Windows security which I understand to be the whole point of this topic:

only that it comes with a side-note on firewalls. It deals with firewalls but on a general view asks about security comparison. Similar to when someone asks for “who guards the house?”, and then goes on to asks “who guards the guard?”. It’s not a particular question on who does what, but a more general question of how secure is the house.

Thanks for the reply, spainach_12.

Actually, when you decide to run an installer, you give the installer the highest level of trust: administrator-privileges. There isn’t much software running with administrator-privileges cannot do, and given how most software for Windows is distributed (from various websites), that seems very unwise.

On Ubuntu, as spainach_12 mentioned, the primary software-source is Ubuntu’s repositories. All software there has been tested, and is signed. So, if the servers are hacked and the files modified, the files will not have a valid signature, and the Software Center or Software Updater will give an authentication error and refuse to install the application/update.

But of course those repositories don’t have every application every user might want to use. Adding a PPA and signing-key from Launchpad is quite secure too.

The least secure installation-method would be to download a .deb-file from some website and run it. While those .deb-files may be signed, they need not be so (which is disappointing). And the installation is a privileged task, so it requires root-privileges. Is this any better than on Windows? Possibly, since the installation is performed by the package-manager (by default Ubuntu Software Center), which, as far as I know and understand (which obviously isn’t much, so please correct me if I’m wrong), does only what it’s supposed to do: install the application (and add PPA and signing-key, if available), whereas an installer (which might not even be an actual installer) on Windows can do whatever its developer wants it to do. There are also policies for .deb-packages. If something that is mandatory (eg. a valid email-address) is missing, the Software Center will alert: “package with bad quality”.

And speaking of the Software Updater, it will keep all software from the repositories, all software installed by adding a PPA, and all software installed from a manually downloaded .deb-file that adds a PPA (such as Chrome and Opera) automatically updated.

If we are done with the installation-comparison, what next? Exploitable kernel-vulnerabilities? >:-D

Well I guess if you were to set up an ubuntu box and a windows box with comodo firewall installed and tried to hack them you would probably find out that it would be very difficult to do so. Although I have not yet tried that but right out of the box both I figure are pretty well secured if that was your question.

I have to admit I have not read every thing people wrote in this thread but if no one has mentioned this before maybe it need to be pointed out that the title should be instead, “iptables vs. comodo.” Unless you were really wondering instead about, “windows vs. linux.”

Many people in linux arena believe that windows is bloated but in reality you can secure it quite nicely as you start of with security in mind immediately. Windows and linux in this case are complete opposites of each other. Linux comes out of the box a closed system where you need to open it up while with windows you need to close it up. The first thing that I do on windows is set up a limited account, install comodo,…With linux I do not have to do any of that and I do not have to worry about security as long as I keep it updated.

Hi kekec and welcome to the forum. :slight_smile:

Comodo Firewall is much more than a network-firewall (it also has HIPS/BB/Sandbox), which is what iptables/UFW is. Of course we can read and interpret a question differently, but IMO, comparing only the respective network-firewalls would be the least relevant security-comparison. And as the overview I linked to in a previous post says, Ubuntu has no open ports (no listening network-services).

That is the problem: “you can secure it [Windows] quite nicely as you start of with security in mind”. User don’t have security in mind, and should not have to have that (to compensate for design-flaws in the system). They should, of course, not have to secure their system, it must be secure, by default. If a product isn’t secure by default, it isn’t secure. Sure, there are always workarounds for educated and enthusiastic users, but not for the vast majority of users, who need security most.

Amen to that.

Not exactly. It’s been an issue for quite some time now. Most pre-installed Windows are insecure by default and are exploitable because of various installed applications that are by no means needed. More like ads (most of them are shareware and nagwares).

Windows users themselves acknowledge Windows’ bloat. That’s why so many guides concerning how to speed Windows up exist applicable even for fresh installs, and the guides almost always never fails to mention removing pre-installed software.

That’s part of the argument why we consider windows bloated. If an OS already came out with software pre-installed, it should be that everything needed to both be secure and functional is installed by default. We shouldn’t have to tinker with it too much. Secondly, it musn’t have anything that isn’t needed installed. Lenovo for example came pre-installed with a McAfee security scan that does, well, pretty much nothing. Or an Acer that came with Norton that only lasts for so long? A media player that you have to pay for after 30 days, a document scanner that’s good only for 100 scans, a document converter that only converts half of the documents, a management suite that can only diagnose unless you purchase it, games that lets you play only the first 3 hours, 30 day trial of an office software, an encryption program good for only two files, site-dedicated loaders, and the list goes on and on and on. If that’s not bloat, I don’t know what they are.

Well both windows and linux have there advantages and disadvantages. I use windows 7 on my laptop because linux does not seem to do too well with wifi. I use linux on my home pc, router,…I have my reasons and I am not in any mood to go into any windows vs. linux debate.