This article is more than little silly, at least for the target audience. These security vulnerabilities are of great concern to system administrators, but it's overblown to say that Linux gamers everywhere need to worry about these. The two remote code execution vulnerabilities are only a concern if you're running a ksmbd server. Who's running a Windows-protocol file server on their Steam Deck?? C'mon now...

[–] queeradjacent@sh.itjust.works 21 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Beat me to it, what exactly is the attack vector on my Steam Deck that mostly sleeps and is on a limited segment behind my firewall and is only used for games 🙄

[–] illusionist@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 hours ago

Someone can delete all your fortnite progress

[–] Lemmchen@feddit.org 19 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Shouldn't it have these distro maintainers thinking of quickly merging security fixes into their stable branches?

[–] illusionist@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I didn't read it but there are always vulnerabilities and rushing may introduce other bugs or vulnerabilities. There's a reason why it's first in beta.

[–] CountVon@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Some of these bugs don't even have a fix yet, at least not one that's committed to the kernel source. The real headline here is that Trend Micro fucked up and blasted the vulnerabilities and proof code to the Linux kernel public mailing list instead of the private vulnerability disclosure email address. They basically gave hackers everywhere a bunch of new zero-day exploits, for free. Absolute clownshoes behaviour.

[–] illusionist@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 hours ago

Gotcha! Thanks!

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 9 points 4 hours ago

Run the stable branch of something that's used in servers. So Ubuntu, Debian, RHEL-equivalents. Ubuntu with the free ESM sounds pretty good right now. Keep unattended security updates on. Reboot often.

[–] evujumenuk@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The headline seems to be predicated on the assumption that stable branches receive fixes faster.

I'm not convinced that this holds true, does anyone know?

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 hours ago

Slightly. Beta branches are usually maintained by the developers for development and not always subject to the same scrutiny as the main branch.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago

"a little worrisome" is understating it by a lot

[–] jankforlife@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 hours ago

LMBO This has not been a good couple of months