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...

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.

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

As with most exploits: they go for where the most and easiest targets are.

As a Linux user it is very unlikely that anyone will try to hack your webcam, even if Linux were similarly vulnerable as Windows.

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.

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

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.

It’s a hardware issue not a software issue. If your laptop can run its webcam and not have the light turn on then it’s bad hardware. Software might get around one exploit, but that doesn’t fix what’s a hardware issue.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

The way I would look at it is:

• If you aren't sure you can trust your computer, you should probably cover your webcam.
• Your level of risk tolerance can vary, so what a person would consider trustworthy may differ from person to person. (For some, maybe any proprietary software makes the computer untrustworthy. For others, maybe they feel smart enough to make good decisions about what software is trustworthy and they just don't download anything that sets off their spidey sense. Or whatever.)
• If you're taking extreme measures to ensure your machine is trustworthy, you're probably going much further out of your way than covering your webcam anyway. If you've picked a lot of the higher branches clean anyway, you probably ought to go ahead and pick that remaining low-hanging fruit.
• Regarding Windows specifically, some would probably call Windows systems less trustworthy on some combination of that a) Microsoft is assholes that might themselves use webcam data in evil ways and/or b) Windows is more targeted by crackers and malware.

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.

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.

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

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).

TL,DR: no

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

I dont think the covering of webcams with tape on windows is necessarily about a malware or an exploit watching you, but more about windows itself monitoring and selling off everything you do.

No. It's necessary

Doesn't Pegasus spy on you from the hardware?