[symtos]

stability /or/ security? because a box running code with bugs that may result in a thwarted control flow is the pinnacle of stability?

your firewall won't help against socket re-use; and most configs won't stop connect-backs since they allow unfiltered outbound access to quite a few destination ports

[nycticorax]

Certainly, lack of security can lead to lack of stability. But sometimes Ubuntu makes changes that can render your machine unbootable, in the name of security. And in some cases the Mint devs chose not to make those changes. There's nothing obviously wrong about this, it's just a different trade-off.

Your points about socket re-use and connect-backs may well be true, but they miss the larger point. How much security is enough? Your computer is less vulnerable if you air-gap it. Do you do this? Likely not, because that's inconvenient. The Mint devs sacrifice some (not much, it seems to me, but some) security for convenience. Maybe you don't like the tradeoffs they made. Fine. But saying some blanket statement like "Mint is insecure" is just silly. It's like saying "Connecting your computer to the Internet is insecure." Yeah, there's some truth to it, but it also ignores the fact that sometimes it makes sense to trade some security for convenience.