Linux

Open source community up in arms over proprietary software for Ubuntu

Portions of the Linux community are up in arms that proprietary software has started appearing in the Ubuntu Software Center. Jack Wallen sees this as a sign of great things to come.

It was only a matter of time before the proprietary software started populating in the Ubuntu Software Center. This was something Mark Shuttleworth had been promising for quite some time. Not only proprietary software, but plenty of other purchasable items would arrive:

  • Movies
  • Music
  • Magazines

And more! The music and magazines have already appeared (music in UbuntOne Music and magazines in the Software Center), and the proprietary software has started to appear. Enterprise-grade software, home-use software, GAMES! Some of these software titles have a price attached and some have a price of $0.00. All of them are closed source -- and this has started to get under the skin of many a Linux user.

To that, I have but one thing to say:

Get over it.

I get it. I really do. I've been a big advocate of open source software for over a decade. But there's a time and a place for everything and the time for the addition of proprietary software for Linux is now. Oh sure, if you want Linux to continue to stagnate on the desktop and business levels, go ahead and fight for your distribution's right to ONLY use proprietary software. But if you have any hope or pretension that Linux will ever survive beyond a paltry 9% of the business desktop space, you're going to have to accept the fact that proprietary software will have to be part of that. In order for Linux to be really and truly taken seriously in the small to medium-sized business space (enterprise business already "gets" Linux), it will have to see some familiar titles start appearing. In order for that to happen, the Linux landscape is going to have to open its arms and repositories to closed source.

Ask yourself two questions:

Do you want QuickBooks on Linux?

Do you think Intuit will ever open its source?

If the answers to the above questions are anything but "Yes" and "No", you might want to re-evaluate your stance. I realize that not everyone uses QuickBooks. But even if that software title isn't for you, it is for the vast majority of businesses. Should Intuit make that great leap, it will only do so once it sees the Linux community welcoming closed source software.

Think about this -- you don't ever see the Windows community complaining about open source software being available for their closed source platform. In fact, the Windows platform is much improved because of the availability of open source software. The opposite applies. With the addition of closed source software, Linux is made all the more powerful, flexible, and (for many users) usable.

What about this little interesting twist. Linux users (including myself) have been complaining about the inability to watch Netflix streaming video on Linux. That is now possible on the Ubuntu desktop. With two simple commands:

  • sudo apt-add-repository ppa:ehoover/compholio
  • sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install netflix-desktop

Check out this page for more information on the Netflix installation.

Figure A

Netflix can be viewed seamlessly (Figure A at left). But you're adding DRM tools and proprietary software onto the system. I've installed it and will continue to install closed source software -- so long as it fills a need not met by open source software. And that is really the crux of the issue. If there is a need on the Linux desktop that cannot (for whatever reason) be met by open source, why continue on without, when closed source can satisfy that need?

Linux is at a very crucial moment in its history -- one that could see mass acceptance. In order for Linux to overcome one of the biggest hurdles in the way of wide-scale deployment, the whole of the community is going to have to accept that the inclusion of proprietary software is a necessity.

Always remember, everything has its place. Now, it turns out, closed source software has its place on Linux. And, of course, there will always be those that refuse to allow closed source software on their desktop. There is nothing wrong with that -- so long as they are getting their needs filled. But for those that long for a broader acceptance of Linux and understand that small to mid-sized business is the one market that must be conquered, know this: Proprietary software appearing in the Ubuntu Software Center is just one step closer to that dream of mass deployment coming true!

About

Jack Wallen is an award-winning writer for TechRepublic and Linux.com. He’s an avid promoter of open source and the voice of The Android Expert. For more news about Jack Wallen, visit his website getjackd.net.

109 comments
Robynsveil
Robynsveil

... in GNU/Linux is graphical. I almost never go to the CLI at all unless I want to do something really different like compile my own latest/greatest version of Blender downloaded from trunk (svn up) and even for that, there's a gui for configure and generate (cmake-gui).

mechanicalmen
mechanicalmen

I have been railing at the linux community for a decade about becoming more user friendly. It needs to just work. Not be something you have to enter a command prompt to use in any real way. EVERY other OS is in GUI mode for everything. Unless of course it's used by a bunch of hammer headed geeks with their panties in a wad about the purity of coding. People want to turn it on and use it. Not get some error message and a response on a website from a nose in the air asshole.

Zenith545
Zenith545

At least the Ubuntu (which I never really cared for) people still have choices. If you want it to look and feel like Windows - get Windows. LOL

The Management consultant
The Management consultant

I am very encouraged at this change.Opensolaris has always been a work bench for proprietor y applications.The developments in the mobile community will undoubtabliy have an effect on the whole open source philosophy.Perhaps its a better understanding that open source is been recognized as a growing part of the market accelerated by the recession.I can only be encouraged that greater recognition and development will ensure for open source.

mdbizzarri
mdbizzarri

From what I am seeing, Windows 8 is slow to take off, and without software that works in Linux, companies will not have much of a choice. If companies do start to sell software for Linux, then they may find that Windows 8 is not worth their time to re-train users. A CEO could get Linux Mint, since it has the same look and feel, but costs a lot less, as in free, trade or purchase licenses for software, and implement in new PC's as they come due to be replaced. No one has to put up with the Win 8 frustration or loss of time or revanue, and they save money in the long run by not paying MS for licensing fees. It is not inherantly evil to make money, and developers and companies should be compensated for their hard work and risk. Those that think the Linux should be only open source should take off their rose colored glasses. How would a company survive if they did not get cash? Money does make the world go round, and I am sure the people that think Linux should only have Freeware do have jobs, and get paid to do whatever it is they do. We do not live in Utopia.

frank.kusel
frank.kusel

Trying to think this through: of course I want my games and music on my Ubuntu box. Just wondering if Linux becomes a transparent gateway (not window :) to the internet, what happens to the "build something for the good of humankind" mentality one finds everywhere in the Linux communities...

eriksank
eriksank

I am absolutely not sure that a request for the user to escalate to root permissions in order to allow Netflix to modify system files on the user's machine is acceptable, since they refuse to disclose what the netflix viewer actually contains. This practice -- very common in Windows -- violates every possible security guideline. Netflix can attempt to enforce DRM on their servers. That is their right. However, they have no authority whatsoever to take control of the user's machine and litter it with binary files and patches while contaminating an environment that is otherwise entirely clean of similar malware; all of that just to make some more profits to the detriment of others while disrespecting what is other people's equipment and property.

robertskinner
robertskinner

This is down to the ideology of the distribution. But at the end of the day, if you do not want to have that type of software, then don't install it. Filter it out of your searches. If they started to pre-install or require such software as part of the release; then this would create a completely different argument. When you choose a Linux distribution, in a way you are choosing to accept the choices that the project has made in regards to what they want to supply you with, sure you can change it, but you accepted up front some form of the release. If you take the opposite such as the FreeBSD project, you need to work in reverse, and build and install everything that you do want. The freedom of choice is there, be it with choosing to install or not, or choosing to switch to some other project with a different path and ideology. This would be a great research project for some graduate student, a study on the political contrasts between open source ideologies, as well as the variances within similar/like projects.

clockmendergb
clockmendergb

Its a necessity for business Quickbooks was a great example. Entertainment distribution will continue to have DRM until we are able to get rid of some of the Industry power in politics. Till then what do we do. For Linux to be relevant to modern kids DRM is not debatable. Sometimes its just necessary to open the door. Something the American politicians are pretending to do now.

shyvmir
shyvmir

I have been using Linux since 1998. Still remember the enthusiasm felt by many colleagues about the then new possibility of having a valid alternative to all those commercial platforms. Looking at the way Linux has grown in the desktop environment, it is rather surprising and disappointing to see that this option is considered by users in rich countries. Only in places where users have an option of having one more computer to do the "other" important things do they actually opt to install Linux on the other one. My observation has been that users with limited resources to purchase only one computer prefer using a commercial (closed source) environment, where they can expect every thing they need to work (more or less). Closed source programs are closed but are very widely used. This is a good move. I hope I can one day run all the programs I need on Linux without and Windows emulators and other tweaks! Congrats Ubuntu

dave
dave

If we can opensource software on proprietary operating systems, why not the other way. I for one am glad of this.. it means companies are finally realising that Linux is not just for geeks.. if games companies like Valve are starting to move to Linux, then serious software should follow. Bring it on.. :-)

dcolbert
dcolbert

This is absolutely a dramatic step forward in making Linux, or at least Ubuntu, more credible option for SMBs and even enterprises. The only way it could go badly is if competitive closed source titles are less robust or stable on *nix than they are on closed sourced platforms like OS X and Windows. That would reflect poorly on the *nix developers' SDKs, toolsets and the kernel stability. If the *nix community is as confident of their foundation as they claim to be, this shouldn't be a concern at all - and Linux advocates should *welcome* the opportunity to establish that *nix is a *superior* platform to build your applications on. If Linux gave meaningful support to applications that interfaced with my Microsoft back-office platforms and solutions at a better TCO and ROI than a like Windows machine - it would be on my radar as a potential replacement for my user desktops in a heartbeat. That isn't *ever* going to happen unless closed sourced applications appear for the Linux desktop.

jaikzelf
jaikzelf

Yeah let's have mass acceptance... so viruses can finally start appearing in Linux just as in Window$. Smart move.

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

that the majority of established, 'common use' software builders are averse to providing their products for free, and to allowing their code to float freely about the ocean that is business computing. I see this helping the Linux market, though I'm uncertain as to its effects on the open source 'market'. If I could have Quickbooks, and Office on Ubuntu, I'd dump Windows permanently.

jag022054
jag022054

I love open source. Many complicated things just seem to work better if they are developed in the open for anyone to comment on. I started using more and more Open Source software as I got tired of tools that I had to fix every time I went to do some small task. I also beleive in the right for honest hardworking people to earn a living. We also have right to use an alternative if what they are selling isn't worth the price or in some cases is just bad. I think that proprietary software can only get better from living in and competing with a world of open source alternatives. I don't think that the open source community needs worry about propietary software. If open source wasn't needed and wanted it wouldn't exist. If proprietary software comming to Linux means anything, it means that the developers that are trying to make that honest living also see the need for open source.

Robynsveil
Robynsveil

...running Photoshop and MS Office in VirtualBox. I find it interesting that no one has mentioned that so far. Where I see a need for proprietary software to release a Linux version is for those apps that make heavy use of hardware drivers that VirtualBox just can't emulate. That would be apps like modo (likely to get a Linux version now that it's been bought by Foundry) and Poser Pro 2012 (Smith Micro). I don't see the latter happening unless a lot of other shops suddenly decide Linux is the new latest/greatest. For me, an OS is an OS: it allows me to run my apps without getting in the way. I think the combination of being unobtrusive, secure and running a lot of proprietary versions of popular software will all serve to bring Linux to what those market-share people hold so important. Oh, and would I buy proprietary software if it was available for Linux? like modo ($1100 a pop)? absolutely! Better start saving up for it now... reckon it's just a matter of when, not if.

eryk81
eryk81

If Linux community can get SMB software like Intuit and Microsoft Office on board along with a really good RDP application, I can see a lot of medium sized business using Linux and Windows RemoteApp's (Citix is expensive, where say, an existing Windows Server 2008 STD file server would just requires additional licensing and configuration for a small amount of clients and applications) as a possible deployment option. Also, Microsoft has made a lot of effort in cohabitation and management with *nix environments which makes am mix OS environment a lot easier to manage for the predominant SMB Windows Administrators.

ps.techrep
ps.techrep

... as long as it doesn't incorporate ANY open source code. (If it did it would be an extension of that code, and the pseudo-proprietary source code would have to be released for open use. ) The ability to derive an income from programming for Linux would attract more talent and could help set standards for quality based on accountability, rather than novelty and popularity, but only if customers shun the software licensing scam that denies accountability for lack of performance as described and responsibility for consequential damages, but holds customers liable for imagined damages to the publishers. If so, I'm all in favor of it. If not, as far as I'm concerned, all "proprietary" software "publishers" are scamming scumbags who should be rotting in prison. I can think of at least one way to have and app free of open-source code - (gasp) assembly language. 'Course that would mean that the programmer actually knew how to program. Instead of hacking and cracking together a committee-driven, bloated, security-riddled, buggy application, it could be refreshing to see a set of lean, mean, minimal apps that did just what was needed, no more and no less. I know programmers who got started with graphical games that ran under DOS, and later moved to apps for gaming hardware.

stuart_lesnett@lesnett.
stuart_lesnett@lesnett.

I've just finished upgrading from Ubuntu 10.04 to 12.04 and really have not had the time investigate the changes good or bad but Linux could use some assistance. I have used Intuit for business and personal needs for sometime but that does not mean I like the way they handle their clients. The software and it's implementation have not been done correctly for migration This problem is not a Linux problem but Intuit's situation just as there are several Linux vendors. Ubuntu verses Red Hat and the others has little to due with THIRD party developers.

DesertJim
DesertJim

If you don't want it don't use it... Linux to me has always been about choice. That is the essence, people run businesses on linux desktop (not just Google), I did and had no problems with compatibility linux to windows or MAC but sometimes Windows to Linux on Powerpoint etc where formatting was key. I will probaly always be a linux proponent but not a bigot. It's an operating system not a religion, get over it!

zulukatashan
zulukatashan

Yeah. That's really the way for Linux to be 'the desktop of the year'. Once closed source is accepted (happily), Linux users will see the multitude of games and specialist softwares like MS Office (nothing beats MS Office, na..) And that's not at all a threat to the Open Source community. We open source people just want, as Jack said, a software that just fills our needs, be it open or closed. Only when these softwares ARE available, does this matter. We will continue to use our favorite FOSS and enjoy the best of every world. I mean.. The Stability of a Linux Box The Feel of a Macintosh, and The Infinite Software of a Windows Machine, devoid of its viruses. :-D

dschlesak
dschlesak

I agree that Linux has to open up to proprietary software if it is intended to become a true competitor to Apple and MS. However, what I hate is having to go through tons of shareware and proprietary software to find that open source program that I may use only once. Ubuntu needs to segregate shareware from freeware and proprietary software. I hate installing a package only to find that it is a demo for proprietary software and it expired in ten days. Let me have a choice and not have to go through hundreds of titles to find the "needle in a haystack".

jmbaynes
jmbaynes

I love the quickbooks comment. The lack of being able to have quickbooks on linux has been the only thing keeping me with windows for the past 4-5 years. If this happens it will be a MAJOR game changer.

wmstrome
wmstrome

I would just like to see an option in the Software Center that would hide all items that cost anything. Now, it is just too cluttered with items for which there is a charge. As for the availability of non-free software in LINUX, I am all for it. There are only a few things for which I need Windows, and if I they were available in LINUX, I could ditch Windows entirely.

blatanville
blatanville

If Adobe compiled their Creative Suite to run under Linux and Windows VST plugins could be ported or bridged to run under Linux, I'd have no personal reason to stick with Windows. At work I use MS Project, too, and there's currently nothing that works as well under Linux (don't try to sell me, I've looked at a lot of options) IF I could cover those three bases, I'd have a Linux (Xubuntu for me, please!) homerun!

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Every distribution of Linux I've tried in the last five years or so "just works". You don't have to use the CLI at all. Every one of the major distros (and most of the others, as well), can be run from a live DVD so you can try it out before installation. Or do what I did, download several and install them onto a USB drive (I used LinuxLive USB Creator). You can test them all with only a reboot between each one; you won't even have to swap DVDs. And, for what it's worth, sometimes you have to use the command line in Windows, too.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

some people want an OS that's like the Windows they know, not some piece of rubbish that's called Windows but looks like a version of Linux from 4 years ago - that's why some versions of Linux with Win 2000 Classic and Win XP looks are doing well, such as Zorin OS Linux - they're also good for the older people who are updating hardware but don't want the 'new style' Windows look.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

also it'll be a LONG time before MS, Apple, Adobe, and co go away.

Slayer_
Slayer_

Just change that one folder to have more rights for your user?

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

as we have legal access to the codecs and other ways around DRM

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

support their Linux systems the way they support Windows etc. Such as how Flash is not properly supported by it's proprietary owners to work on a Linux machine the way it does on a Windows system.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

has, they won't do much, if anything at all.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

doesn't do for you? For general Office usages I've not yet found anything I used to do in MS Word, and Excel that I can't do in Libre Office. A Couple of the Macros had me having to recreate them in Libre Office, but they were nothing compared to the agro I had with MSO 2007 and 2010 ribbons or the troubles I had with some of the changes in MSO 2003.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

that makes it a easier to use and more like what many people are familiar with.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

In which case you need to use the CLI to find your Apps from the Start Page or scroll through lots of Tiles looking. Seems that Windows has become what Linux was 8 or more years ago and Linux has Become what the Window Users want. ;) Col

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

to do it. You can even set it to apply to a particular group as well.

dcolbert
dcolbert

And who is to blame? If software publishers with proprietary applications saw Linux as lucrative, they would put more resources there. This is a chicken-and-the-egg question that the Linux community needs to resolve if they want to gain meaningful market share. One reason Android became first viable, and then dominant in Smart Phone total units sold was the arrival of quality apps with mainstream consumer appeal. But until the Droid 1 gave Android a big enough market base to attract those developers, the platform was largely ignored by most top-tier publishers. GIMP and Open Office will *never* be those things for Linux. Ubuntu needs to find their "Verizon"... someone who has something the competition doesn't have (the best network... Verizon,) but lacks something the competition DOES have (the most attractive smartphone platform - AT&T and Apple).

dcolbert
dcolbert

Or Chad Perrin was *wrong* in every Open vs. Closed argument I ever had with him about WHY closed source is a bigger security risk. I'll let you pick which one you want to support, but you can only pick one or the other. Ultimately, the exploits in Windows often come from 3rd party holes in proprietary software that are not discovered or disclosed by their publishers, according to Apotheon. If closed source software comes to Linux *and* Chad is correct about Open Source peer review disclosing and resolving security holes quicker - then closed source on Linux means that there will be *unknown* security exploits in 3rd party software in the wild that are undiscovered and exploitable for longer, making Linux *inherently* less secure. You can't have your cake and eat it too. (And Apotheon thought I wasn't paying attention to his points and just arguing to win the argument at ANY cost... ) ;)

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

You were doing so well until your last paragraph resorted to name calling and insults.

Robynsveil
Robynsveil

...to that tiresome "too many distros, too fragmented" rubbish one hears repeated all the time.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

They seem pretty interested in the shaven masses given that they develop a desktop distribution targeting the average user. But that's the beauty of it, anyone can grab the Linux kernel and build distribution on top of it tuned for there specific target customer/user. This elitist "the dump masses don't deserve it" crap is part of the problem.

eriksank
eriksank

Who actually ever said that linux wants "market share"? Linux is attractive, only to people who value its characteristics. For example, linux is attractive to the software engineering community, because of the unfettered innovation going on, on the platform. It is attractive to hosting companies because of its manageability. It is attractive to both embedded device (including phones) and supercomputer manufacturers because it scales down as well as it scales up. It is attractive to the military and to companies in telecommunications because it is rock solid. It is attractive to investment banks because it is a fantastic number cruncher. And so on. Linux does not seem attractive to the unshaved masses of ignorami, mostly -- I guess -- because they do not have a clue. Since when is that a problem? Anybody who values other characteristics more, or elsewhere, should simply use another system.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

ensure that the people who do use it can allow people to use the end result. Adobe push to have people use Adobe Acrobat to create PDF files and encourage this by giving Adobe Reader away free, but the Adobe Reader for Linux wasn't there for years, and then Adobe got upset when they found out the FOSS community had filled the gap and not only done it well, they did it better and cheaper. The same was done with Flash, buy Flash to create things as we give people the software to watch it free - yet they don't do what they said, they only give away a good one to watch it in Windows that changes every few years while you can create a player in Linux and it stays the same until you change how Flash itself works. Well one major US based international organisation was spending a fortune on creating a special data entry system to work in Flash so people could do it all via their browsers. When they found out it didn't have full functionality in Linux they dumped Flash and have since done it using just HTML and Java giving it a much higher responsiveness and a broader cross platform use-ability. If a company wants to put out a product for people to create things and encourage it's use, then they either have to ensure the resulting output is cross-platform capable or ensure they put out multi-platform user programs to use the created stuff with, or admit up front they're being one platform centric and tell the potential users of their software they will have limited customer use-ability. When people claim stuff Flash can be used on any system at all, they are giving out pure BS.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

said the majority of them were in the Javascripting and only compromising the data stored in the apps using Javascripts - I'm not up with and into using smart phones or Android so I've not been following it closely. But from what the articles I've seen about the security issues it seems it's not the OS itself that's being compromised all the time, but the apps on the system due to the faults in the Javascript and almost all the developers using Javascript to write their apps. If the cause of the security flaws is as those reports claimed, then the fault is NOT in Android it's in the Java and using non-Java apps would render the exploits useless. And yes, Android is a variant of Linux cut back to only what the developers want in it, how much it's cut back I don;'t know so I've no idea of how much of the security system they've removed.

dcolbert
dcolbert

http://www.zdnet.com/how-to-decide-should-you-upgrade-to-windows-8-7000008186/?s_cid=e539 Who suggests that the security in Windows 7 is a solid improvement over Windows XP and Vista. I agree. In the meantime, Malware on Linux based Android has become a growing problem even while Windows security concerns have subsided greatly. Windows 8 is a step forward from Windows 7 in this regard, designed with any even greater focus on system securtiy (for example, preventing systems from dual booting secure Windows 8 and insecure Linux). The point is - an exploit in the system or an exploit in a single app doesn't really make a difference, if your personal information is compromised in the process. Malware, Trojans and viruses have a financial incentive in mind these days, not bragging rights of hacking root access to your system (unless there is money to be made doing so). This argument is outdated. If Linux were to become as popular as Android is, it *would* be targeted by malware. The fact that Android *is* Linux and it *is* targeted really illustrates that I'm right about this long running argument. You're looking at this from a Windows XP era perspective - and the platform landscape has changed significantly during that time. I know this. My shop's Windows platform malware challenges have subsided tremendously since Windows 7 and W2k8. We used to have 3 to 5 AV responses per month minimum. Now I see one case every 3 to 4 months, almost always on a Windows XP machine. My BYOD malware user issues have increased dramatically during that time, almost exclusively on Linux based Android.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

If a third party application has a vulnerability that can be exploited it only acts as a doorway at that point, it's at that point the security quality of the OS itself takes over. With Windows it means any any hole is a gateway to the entire system, but with the way Unix and Linux is compartmented with plenty of internal security it means nothing or next to nothing can be done once through the hole. I got sent one of those emails that has a Flash card in it along with some malware that enters via the Flash code. As soon as I viewed the email the Flash code started to run, the malware jumped from the Flash code to my OS and I got a message from the OS asking for permission. Ran a scan, found the malware, cleaned it out, deleted the mail, and no issues. But my brother had big problems on his Win 7 Pro system dealing with it as it got past the security barriers when he received it and viewed it. It's because of the inherent differences in the basic design that I don't see any third party vulnerabilities being much of an issue, if any issue to Linux. I still do NOT see a major concern coming solely from having proprietary applications on Linux. It's kind of like the difference between driving around an active rifle range in a light van and an armoured van.

dcolbert
dcolbert

Already kind of established the answer to that question? Maybe not as much harm as when they can run around the entire kernel with impunity - but still, enough damage to be painful.

dcolbert
dcolbert

And atypical and... during what period, on what platform? How was security managed on this Windows Network? Was it NT4, W2k, W2k8? Were the workstations Win95/98 or W2k Pro or XP or... There are a whole lot of undisclosed variables here that are going to have a tremendous impact on your claim above. I'm not saying that there WEREN'T exploits on solely MS based machines with nothing else loaded or running. I'm saying that Apotheon claims that when you introduce closed source into an environment, the code cannot be peer reviewed, and that exploits that exist may go undiscovered, unpatched, and exposed - *and* that the bad guys know how to look for these weaknesses. Most exploits leverage this, according to the FOSS party line. So - if you introduce closed-source applications to a FOSS platform, you bring this problem right along with it. No way around that. It doesn't matter if your Linux foundation is secure, if you're running closed source apps that are full of vectors for attack on top of that.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

I think there are already some nasty things that are cross platform due to targeting Java or Flash regardless of the OS under it. The question will be what the malware can do once it has exploited the third party vulnerability. That is the part I'm interested to see personally.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

that only ever ran MS software due to the organisation being totally MS centric. Windows, MS Office, Outlook, MS Internet Explorer, MS Defender, Windows Server, etc - their accounts were outsourced and that company only ever sent over printed reports. All software within the organisation had to be Microsoft or you couldn't load it on a company system. yet they had one of the highest infection rates I've ever seen in a corporate environment, especially for an organisation of 23 people.