441
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

This isn't true

Linux package managers typically use GPG which is a much better solution. It is simpler and doesn't have the unnecessary complexity of certificates.

What security problems do you think package managers are vulnerable to? If the upstream repo is compromised all bets are off regardless of the system.

[-] Mihies@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

You are right, GPG signing is good as well. But in both cases you still have unsigned apps.

What security problems do you think package managers are vulnerable to? If the upstream repo is compromised all bets are off regardless of the system.

Yep. And in such case an antivirus software might come handy.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 days ago

Antivirus software would be totally useless since the problem is your own system.

There is also the issue of trust in the antivirus. This programs are typically high privilege and mostly snake oil.

this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2025
441 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

9902 readers
552 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS