226
Google pays $250K for Linux vulnerability allowing guest VM escapes
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2026
226 points (98.3% liked)
Selfhosted
60623 readers
818 users here now
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil.
-
No spam.
-
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
-
Submission headline should match the article title.
-
No trolling.
-
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.
-
AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't know where you got the notion from that Linux as a whole uses this concept, but it's nonsense. There's exactly one place where this definition fits, which is the GRUB bootloader encryption (which merely shifts the target for the Evil Maid attack from the initramfs to GRUB). But this is already adressed with Verified Boot.
Nothing else, let it be LUKS, PAM, SELinux, AppArmor or whatever has any business with STO.
From the fact it used to have to smallest user base of the big three. Less users = less probability of a nefarious person.
It's really not that difficult a concept. I'm surprised people here are asking what it is.
You confused "obscurity" as in a synonym for low popularity with the word "obscurity" as in people not knowing how it works and people deliberately hiding the inner workings of a system.
Everyone using Linux can know how it works, that's the opposite of obscurity in the sense it is used within "security by obscurity".
Apart from that, Linux is very popular, just not on the Desktop. It is therefore not obscure in the sense of popularity either, at least the components which are hit by the bug mentioned in the article.
That doesn't make any sense as argument no matter how you spin it. Linux is the dominant system for servers for decades now, and a Debian Desktop is quite literally the same as Debian on a server except it also got a GUI of your choice slapped on top. There's absolutely nothing obscure about it, neither did anyone from the kernel team (Linux), FSF (GNU utils) nor IBM / Red Hat (systemd & honestly way too much other stuff) etc. ever design something around STO. That's a domain firmly situated in proprietary code since for FOSS it doesn't make sense to begin with. The false errand of GRUB is the sole exception, well known and solved.
The desktop market share says absolutely nothing about what you're trying to argue. Now if you were to argue that Linux is lacking in terms of desktop software isolation then you'd have a point, things like Flatpak still are addressing lots of issues. But to say "Linux" approaches security with obscurity is total nonsense.