Because I use 32-bit, I find my list of potential OS's limited, considering that I am somewhat of a novice with linux and can not use an OS that requires a lot of knowledge to put it together to get it to run.

I'm looking for a 32-bit OS that would be (the most) difficult to hack.

MUST be 32-bit.

32 Bit support is dwindling. There are specific distributions for older hardware but do not have any idea on their release cycle or which ones are a rolling release. Of the major distributions it depends if you want bleeding edge or stability. The following link might provide some insight to how distributions are built.

https://www.howtogeek.com/192939/lin...dard-releases/

Those point distributions that have a shorter release cycle tend to have the later program versions but could have more bugs or stability problems. I care less about bleeding edge and more for stability. If I do want bleeding edge then I use a virtual machine and if it breaks it isn't a big deal. debian always has four repositories i.e. unstable, testing, stable which is the current release (10) and old stable which is the last release (9). Unstable and testing are debian's development versions where they work out the bugs. debian's production release cycle is around 2 years.

Newer hardware tend to require the latest kernels and it is possible to upgrade the kernel on a production release. However, this should not be a problem in your case. As older hardware becomes obsolete it is possible that kernel support has been removed in newer versions too.

Ubuntu has ppa and snaps that can install the latest versions but there have been virus's introduced and can have stability and bug problems. Always wanting to install the latest and greatest has its faults and merits.

Thank you - well thought out answer. Does "stability" equate with "security"? In short, I am just looking for the 32-bit OS that is the most secure in terms of having the OS hacked; this definitely doesn't seem like bleeding edge. From this standpoint, which seems most secure, debian9 or debian10? I'll check out the link...
Thanks!

As long as the release is supported debian provides security updates. Security can be a complex topic. The only system that can not be hacked is one that is not connected to anything and locked inside a vault.

3 members found this post helpful.

You could consider Fedora. That keeps very up-to-date, uses Security Enhanced Linux by default, and has a ready-configured and active firewall.

1 members found this post helpful.

Quite right. And I find that others have commented about this tendency. The numerous threads about security, as well as this post:The issue here is that you seem to be persistently looking for an iron clad situation where there are full guarantees that everything is secure. As michaelk has pointed out, security is a complex topic.

While there's nothing incorrect about well formed questions, I would ask that you provide clear thread titles, noting that this title does not discuss security at all, and that you also be very clear the full intention of your question with your first post. Here you've done the latter within your first post, however the title does not cover anything related to your primary topic.

Further, you may wish to use the Linux - Security forum for many of your questions, because that entire forum is about topics related to security. You may find common visitors from the LQ site in that forum, who you do not normally see browsing this particular forum.

1 members found this post helpful.

Distrowatch's search function has answers:
https://distrowatch.com/search.php?architecture=i386
https://distrowatch.com/search.php?architecture=i686
(I never quite know what the difference between i686 and i386 is, but they're both definitely 32 bit)

as for the rest - most updated vs. least updated - that's a loaded comparison. Stripped to its factual meaning, it's a question of personal preference, not security.

1 members found this post helpful.

I know there is no iron clad solution ever, but, my guess is that there are some OS's that are more secure than others, by default. And my thinking here applies to all other linux related security questions. Everything can be manipulated, that is clear to me, truly. Thanks.

I will look into it, thanks!

Fedora is dropping i686 support in the next version (31). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Chang...86Repositories

One that runs from ram would be the most secure. Every time you boot you load a fresh system.

Tiny Core & SliTaz would fit the remit, amongst several other more mainstream distros, such as antiX.

OpenSUSE's Tumbleweed still has 32-bit support. For how long? Unsure.

Slackware still offers a 32-bit version as well. I suspect they might continue supporting the older architecture a bit longer than most distributions.

HTH...

I hadn't noticed that Fedora was dropping 32-bit. I suspect that the only safe houses are Debian and Slackware, although I'd get them in the form of MX Linux and Salix.