It's better to be proactive than being reactive. Take preventive measures that fit your threat model.

Most malware is writen for Windows, but Linux malware exists, and has been found in the wild. The most common infection method, like with windows is running a trojan, theoretically things like browser exploits could also be used, but these are unlikely unless you are a high profile target like a head of state or CEO.

I would personaly be much more worried about someone evesdropping through my microphone. All they would get from my camera is my face and some glances of the room my computer is in, but my microphone would reveal all sorts of private conversations.

If this is the case, what makes Windows so much more vulnerable?

What the hell. They are same vulnerable.

The thing about exploits is that they can exist without there being a wider knowledge of them; that's the nature of the beast. So I play it safe.

Plus, for 5 cents' worth of masking tape you've solved the problem, so why bother even thinking about it.

One of the key tenets of keeping something computerised secure is 'Defence in Depth' - i.e. having multiple layers of defence, so that even if one layer is breached, the next layer (which you thought was redundant and unnecessary) prevents the attack.

Running a fully patched kernel and services / applications should protect you unless someone has a 0-day (i.e. not disclosed) exploit. Reducing the surface area by minimising what services / applications are running, using software (firejail etc...) and firewalls to limit permissions of applications / services to what is needed, etc... serves as another layer of defence. Disconnecting or physically blocking peripherals that might allow for spying is another layer; it serves its purpose if all the other layers are breached.

It is. I run a virtual camera for blurred backgrounds that logs when clients connect and noticed one of my web conferencing type apps like to take a photo ever second. Haven't taken time to investigate which (likely candidates: slack, zoom, webex, discord).

My take: if your camera is spying on you, there is a big chance that your entire device has been compromised. Ig that happens, it's game over and me masturbating to bdsm furry porn is the least of my problems. Especially now that AI video exists anyway.

Linux is not magically more resilient than Windows. If an exploit on windows exists, a similar exploit could also exist on Linux.

You can't hack a piece of electrical tape. But there are classier webcam covers which you can slide to close available for sale.

I never really understood the obsession to cover cameras. While yes you don't want someone to hack it and yes I do cover mine. What are they going to do? Watch you fap? I really don't care. I personally am much more concerned with the mic. I would hate for someone to record me saying something well not so pleasant. You can use your imagination. I rarely see people mention the mic. I see it mentioned a few times here but not much. I much rather have a kill switch for my mic.

If you use Qubes then USB devices and mics are by default not attached to any VMs.

This question really begs the point that cam and mic need kill switches that physically disconnect these things with a simple switch.

One of you go make a wall mounted light switch thing with a red LED for Workstations and sell it -- I could see this becoming standard.

Laptop world is going to take more inroads from slacker hackers scratching their own itch.

Is it unnecessary to cover one's webcam on Linux?

No. Please cover your webcam.

how vulnerable is the device to having its webcam exploited?

Every bit as much as Windows minus their proprietary spyware.

How vulnerable is a Linux device if you don’t take extra precautions like firewalls.

Depends on what links you like to click.

what makes Windows so much more vulnerable?

Fewer eyes on the source code. Effort to reward ratio, the 80-20 rule. 20% of the effort nets your 80% of the reward. Literally. Develop exploits for one platform, target 80% of average computer users. Or write exploits for hundreds of different distros for *checks notes* ... 4%. Unless you like servers. There there's a coin toss. 50% linux, 50% Windows.

Keep yourself safe, there's malware for Gnu-Linux too. Install your patches when you can. Remove software you don't use. Practice good cyber hygiene.

just buy a little stick-on privacy slider. They're like 3 for $10

The device is vulnerable. The webcam is one way that gets exploited.

If it makes you feel safer, cover the camera when you’re not using it. I can’t comprehend why a person wouldn’t cover it up when it’s not in use. It takes one second.

Stay patched up.

Uh, yes? It always seemed a bit silly to me. If they have that level of access you are in trouble

If you trust this source, it turns out that it is pretty easy to see your camera feed even if your camera is off: https://techxplore.com/news/2024-02-camera-hackers-spy-cameras-walls.html

I read about it on lemmy, too. I guess I -- or one of us -- should have cross posted it here from its .world source: https://lemmy.world/post/12081766

Edit to add excerpts:

Results vary on how far away someone would have to be in order to eavesdrop on these different devices. For some, a peeping Tom would have to be less than 1 foot away; for others, they could be as far away as 16 feet.

For consumers, Fu says a plastic lens cover might not be guaranteed to protect you—infrared signals can still get through them––but it is a good first step to battling this kind of cyberthreat.

If you are running zoom, teams, skype or similar software, cover it.

TL,DR: no

All software has bugs, including Linux. Some bugs can lead to security escalation. Those bugs are called vulnerabilities. Like bugs, all software has vulnerabilities - including Linux.

Your webcam can be accessed by hackers on Linux, on Windows, on MacOS, on BSD, it doesn't matter.

Honestly, I don’t think anyone can actually say 100% for sure that your webcam can’t be accessed. We don’t know what we don’t know—new exploits are discovered every day—thus it’s worth the extra 2 seconds to cover and uncover it.

No. It's necessary

Doesn't Pegasus spy on you from the hardware?

If I'm not using my cam, it's not plugged in. If I am not chatting, my headset's physical button has the mic deactivated. That's two potential vulnerabilities I just don't have to think about.

I do, for three reasons:

1. Hackers. It's unlikely that anyone would hack my webcam, but there's always a chance. Maybe I'm paranoid, idk.
2. Hardware exploits. Three of my laptops are too old for me to update the firmware with fwupd, so I cover the webcams in case there's some critical hardware-level vulnerability which could be exploited; or in case one of the three-letter agencies are in there.
3. Consequences. Despite the incredibly low chances of anything happening whatsoever, the possible consequences are too bad for me to want to risk it.

I'm paranoid, aren't I...