In June of 2023 Red Hat made a controversial decision to change how they distribute the source code behind Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). There have been a lot of keyboards tapped angrily across social media that left many uncertain about the ramifications of the decision. There were many questions about the future viability of downstream rebuilds of RHEL affecting distributions like Rocky Linux, AlmaLinux, Oracle Linux, and others. Each have since made announcements to try and calm their communities.
Still. Many in the open source community have interpreted Red Hat’s decision for what it really was: A dick move.
There has been a steady uptick of people stating that they will migrate (or already have) to Debian – seeking refuge from what they see as greedy corporate influence. I understand the sentiment fully. However, there’s a problem here that I want to talk about: security.
The ugly truth is that security is hard. It’s tedious. Unpleasant. And requires a lot of work to get right.
Debian does not do enough here to protect users.
[…]
Debian, a stalwart of the open-source community, is revered for its stability and extensive software library. I am a fan and donate to the project every year (you should too!) even though I don’t run it in production environments.
However, its default security framework leaves much to be desired. Debian’s decision to enable AppArmor by default starting with version 10 signifies a positive step towards improved security, yet it falls short due to the half-baked implementation across the system.
Debian’s reliance on AppArmor and its default configurations reveals a systemic issue with its approach to security. While AppArmor is capable of providing robust security when properly configured, Debian’s out-of-the-box settings fail to leverage its full potential
A clear and concise critique of Debian’s approach to security as CentOS refugees continue to flock to it.