6 ms·

I'm curious why the author says Linux is "insecure, anti-secure, and anti-privacy software" Can anyone explain this? Also, why OpenBSD specifically, and not Fr

I'm curious why the author says Linux is "insecure, anti-secure, and anti-privacy software" Can anyone explain this? Also, why OpenBSD specifically, and not FreeBSD for example?

atmosx 10y ago
Since OpenBSD can be backdoored[1] with the same ease that the Linux kernel could be backdoored, I have no idea why all the fuss. Debian is pretty thorough in NOT including proprietary software if that's what we're talking about. As far as I'm concerned, it's good to have options and the OpenBSD developers have created software that I use daily (OpenSMTPd, SSH, PF, etc.) and for that, I'm thankful! ps. I know that developing IPSEC backdoors is not easy by any means. But the subsequent Theo De Raadt answer, was that he can't tell if there are backdoors or not. That was my point. [1] https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129236621626462&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129236621626462&w=2
- aortega 10y ago
  >can be backdoored[1] with the same ease No, no with the same ease. Every OpenBSD commit is throughly reviewed, and there is only a bunch of commiters. Compared with linux, with thousands of commiters and tons of code added every day, OBSD is way more difficult to backdoor.
  - notaplumber 10y ago
    No loadable kernel modules for OpenBSD either.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Not having a formal kernel module system does not actually mean the kernel is secure. Exploits to create module loading systems out of kernel vulnerabilities are approximately as old as stack overflow exploits.
      - notaplumber 10y ago
        NX enforced kernel W^X, SMEP/SMAP, always-on stack protector and a limited attack surface (..say, from pledge(2)), only serve to make such theoretical attacks impractical against OpenBSD.
        tptacek 10y ago
        No. Those are useful countermeasures, but kernel exploits for OpenBSD are neither theoretical nor impractical.
        JoachimSchipper 10y ago
        Even as an OpenBSD fan, I'm not sure why tptacek was downvoted here. W^X etc. make it harder to write an exploit, but sufficiently-bad bugs can still yield arbitrary code execution. (Or confused-deputy problems allowing escalation to root, etc.; there's more than one way to pwn a box.) And - architecturally - OpenBSD's kernel isn't that different from Linux, both being UNIX-style kernels; to the extent that OpenBSD's kernel has better security than Linux, it's mostly because OpenBSD tends to have fewer (and, sometimes, better-considered) features. (There's an interesting argument to be had about Linux+grsecurity vs. OpenBSD - focusing on having some cutting-edge parts vs. solid engineering throughout - but that's not the argument we're having.)
        PhantomGremlin 10y ago
        I'm not sure why tptacek was downvoted here Maybe because his comment had the tone of: "For this, I have found a truly wonderful proof, but the margin is too small to contain it."
        tptacek 10y ago
        Do you need a "truly wonderful proof" for "the mainstream OS OpenBSD has not managed to render kernel vulnerabilities unexploitable, or to rid itself of those vulnerabilities entirely"? Because: that's an extraordinary claim for an OpenBSD supporter to make.
  - gonzo 10y ago
    > Every OpenBSD commit is throughly reviewed, [...] You should observe that this didn't happen here. Sam Leffler found that bug, fixed it, and sent OpenBSD the patch while bringing the "fast IPSec"stack to FreeBSD. OpenBSD silently patched it. The whole thing only came to light years later, when the accusations were made.
    - aortega 10y ago
      >You should observe that this didn't happen here. I bet it now happens.
      - symtos 10y ago
        you bet? yet in your previous comment you stated it as a fact
        aortega 10y ago
        yes.
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  >Since OpenBSD can be backdoored[1] And you link to that not happening? Seems a bit silly.
mulander 10y ago
FreeBSD is pretty anti-secure too. https://vez.mrsk.me/freebsd-defaults.txt https://vez.mrsk.me/freebsd-defaults.txt
- akerro 10y ago
  Also this: http://networkfilter.blogspot.com/2014/12/security-openbsd-vs-freebsd.html http://networkfilter.blogspot.com/2014/12/security-openbsd-v...
- protomyth 10y ago
  BSD Now did a rebuttal in Episode 134 http://www.bsdnow.tv/episodes/2016_03_23-marking_up_the_ports_tree http://www.bsdnow.tv/episodes/2016_03_23-marking_up_the_port... IMHO, I found it unconvincing. It soured me on the rest of the episode and its not really my watch as soon as its out podcast anymore. I guess since every segment is basically a FreeBSD segment no matter what OS they are talking about, it had to go that way. YMMV
quisquous 10y ago
I'm lumping Linux in that group because my impression is that Linus is ambivalent about security--it seems to be just another feature to him (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/11/05/net-of-insecurity-the-kernel-of-the-argument/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/11/05/net-of-...). Additionally, with most of the popular distros, once I install the OS, I have to spend a bunch of time locking things down before I do anything else, whereas OpenBSD has pretty good defaults that I can build up from. Also, when Ubuntu, one of the most popular Linux distros, started capturing searches by default, that got me questioning their commitment to privacy. That's not to say there aren't distros and contributors to Linux that care deeply about security--clearly there are. I just don't find the overall ecosystem nor the most popular distros nearly as focused on or as trustworthy on security and privacy. And as the stakes get higher with more of our lives going digital and more companies, states, and criminals trying to take advantage of that trend, I worry. As for OpenBSD vs FreeBSD, I've had an easier time getting OpenBSD working on my hardware and OpenBSD seems to me more concerned with, focused on, and practically innovative on security--that is to say, they don't just introduce new security features that can be configured and used by someone smarter than me, the OpenBSD folks work hard to introduce new security tech that's on by default with no special knowledge required by the end user, i.e. pledge, W^X.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Then modify the claim to say "some Linux kernels/distros" instead of Linux as a whole. Meanwhile, thanks to CompSci, there's Linux's (eg Criswell's SVA-OS) and FreeBSD's (eg CheriBSD on CHERI) that run with way more security than OpenBSD. They push the state of the art. So, it's a mixed bag. OpenBSD is actually no different. The developers care a lot about security and quality. Yet, the mere fact that I see OpenBSD desktops in Google images running shoddy applications shows many OpenBSD users make similar tradeoffs to what you described of Linux camp. It's just the kernel and select userland that gets their attention to quality due to limited staff (and their preferences).
  - neerdowell 10y ago
    > Yet, the mere fact that I see OpenBSD desktops in Google images running shoddy applications shows many OpenBSD users make similar tradeoffs to what you described of Linux camp. Are these "shoddy applications" not more secure on OpenBSD due to the various mitigations applied to userland software?
dijit 10y ago
FreeBSD follows a similar pattern to linux, security at the expense of performance is a regression. the reason people say that Linux is insecure is probably because Linus' stances take a hard line, in that "you must understand what you're doing in order to make a patch". The problem is, QA and auditing is only so good and doesn't always catch the people who really don't know what they're doing.. So Linus is openly hostile to people who do stupid things consistently in some sort of attempt to fend off the others who are doing silly things although perhaps not realising it. That's my impression and it's based on nothing more than an outside perspective so I'm probably way off base, but Linus has certainly been quoted before as saying things like "anybody who pushes for security first is a masturbating monkey", avoiding integrating GRSec and PaX for aeons and it's usually left up to distro maintainers to cherry pick the bug fixes from the mainline kernel branch.
peatmoss 10y ago
I think this line was meant mainly to refer to his closed source iPhone, OS X, and Windows use. Perhaps he means his Linux usage is one of the more mainstream distributions that readily facilitates installation of binary kernel blobs (e.g. wifi, video), or 3rd party closed source software. He may also be calling Linux insecure due to it being less uncompromisingly about security. Same could be said about FreeBSD--they aren't necessarily insecure, but they are not as explicitly focussed on that. OpenBSD invests a great deal here. They have their own fork of Xorg (or was that XFree86?) that runs not as root. As far as I know that's unique amongst libre *nixen. EDIT: this is what I get for starting a response, getting coffee and resuming my reply. We don't have to speculate what the author of is post intended, and his response is better than mine ;-)
- creshal 10y ago
  > OpenBSD invests a great deal here. They have their own fork of Xorg (or was that XFree86?) that runs not as root. As far as I know that's unique amongst libre *nixen. It's a standard feature of Xorg nowadays, but it's only a feature of vanilla Xorg for a few years.
  - Santosh83 10y ago
    I'm probably misunderstanding something but on my system (Ubuntu 14.04 LTS) the X server runs as root & not as my user.
    - creshal 10y ago
      Ubuntu does not enable it by default, as it mixes poorly with some drivers: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Rootless https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Rootless AMD only added KMS to their proprietary driver last year, and Nvidia this year (and IIRC only in a beta driver so far); and systemd makes the permission handling a lot easier. So Ubuntu will transition to it eventually, but didn't have all puzzle pieces until too recently for even 16.04 LTS.
symtos 10y ago
why not freebsd? the freebsd project seem to focus exclusively on post-attack with jails and trustedbsd mac. fbsd has not implemented any of the modern exploit mitigation techniques. i mean, even os x has had full aslr since 2012 lol. some years ago fbsd was forked to hardenedbsd which has aslr, mprotect restrictions, non-exec pages on cpus w/o NX, randomized lib loading order, etc. i guess the freebsd project is too busy fighting meritocracy cus none of it has been merged as far as i can tell. as for linux, plenty has been written on linus' stance on what he considers to be a "security circus"; and the mantra on lkml is still that "a bug is a bug". just watch oss-sec and see distro people wading through kernel commit logs (hyperbole) cus sec-related bugs usually aren't reported downstream
- corv 10y ago
  FreeBSD has ASLR. https://wiki.freebsd.org/AddressSpaceLayoutRandomization https://wiki.freebsd.org/AddressSpaceLayoutRandomization
  - symtos 10y ago
    no. did you read the first paragraph? > FreeBSD lacks basic low-level exploit mitigation, such as Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) the whitepaper you linked was published in 2014 by Shawn Webb, one of the people behind the hardenedbsd fork. that same year a submission for review was opened on phabricator[1] re. merging their aslr work in mainline fbsd. it was closed on 2015-10-19: > Closing this revision. FreeBSD is free to pull from HardenedBSD. another aslr review request was then created on 2016-03-10 by Konstantin Belousov[2]: > This revision needs review, but there are no reviewers specified. that same day he sent a call for testing to freebsd-arch[3]. there is also a bugzilla ticket[4] for the people waiting for freebsd to catch up with 2001. 1: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D473 https://reviews.freebsd.org/D473 2: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D5603 https://reviews.freebsd.org/D5603 3: https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2016-March/017719.html https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2016-March/... 4: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181497 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181497
4ad 10y ago
FreeBSD lacks (or disables) most mitigations OpenBSD (and usually Windows, or some Linux distros) have, like ASLR, stack protector, W^X, PIE applications by default, libc.so symbol randomization, pledge()'d ports, etc. I love FreeBSD, and use it a lot, and I wish these were all implemented, but until then, it pains me that FreeBSD has less mitigations enabled than Windows and good Linux distros.

I'm curious why the author says Linux is "insecure, anti-secure, and anti-privacy software" Can anyone explain this? Also, why OpenBSD specifically, and not FreeBSD for example?

atmosx 10y ago

Since OpenBSD can be backdoored[1] with the same ease that the Linux kernel could be backdoored, I have no idea why all the fuss. Debian is pretty thorough in NOT including proprietary software if that's what we're talking about. As far as I'm concerned, it's good to have options and the OpenBSD developers have created software that I use daily (OpenSMTPd, SSH, PF, etc.) and for that, I'm thankful! ps. I know that developing IPSEC backdoors is not easy by any means. But the subsequent Theo De Raadt answer, was that he can't tell if there are backdoors or not. That was my point. [1] https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129236621626462&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129236621626462&w=2

aortega 10y ago
>can be backdoored[1] with the same ease No, no with the same ease. Every OpenBSD commit is throughly reviewed, and there is only a bunch of commiters. Compared with linux, with thousands of commiters and tons of code added every day, OBSD is way more difficult to backdoor.
- notaplumber 10y ago
  No loadable kernel modules for OpenBSD either.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Not having a formal kernel module system does not actually mean the kernel is secure. Exploits to create module loading systems out of kernel vulnerabilities are approximately as old as stack overflow exploits.
    - notaplumber 10y ago
      NX enforced kernel W^X, SMEP/SMAP, always-on stack protector and a limited attack surface (..say, from pledge(2)), only serve to make such theoretical attacks impractical against OpenBSD.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        No. Those are useful countermeasures, but kernel exploits for OpenBSD are neither theoretical nor impractical.
        JoachimSchipper 10y ago
        Even as an OpenBSD fan, I'm not sure why tptacek was downvoted here. W^X etc. make it harder to write an exploit, but sufficiently-bad bugs can still yield arbitrary code execution. (Or confused-deputy problems allowing escalation to root, etc.; there's more than one way to pwn a box.) And - architecturally - OpenBSD's kernel isn't that different from Linux, both being UNIX-style kernels; to the extent that OpenBSD's kernel has better security than Linux, it's mostly because OpenBSD tends to have fewer (and, sometimes, better-considered) features. (There's an interesting argument to be had about Linux+grsecurity vs. OpenBSD - focusing on having some cutting-edge parts vs. solid engineering throughout - but that's not the argument we're having.)
        PhantomGremlin 10y ago
        I'm not sure why tptacek was downvoted here Maybe because his comment had the tone of: "For this, I have found a truly wonderful proof, but the margin is too small to contain it."
        tptacek 10y ago
        Do you need a "truly wonderful proof" for "the mainstream OS OpenBSD has not managed to render kernel vulnerabilities unexploitable, or to rid itself of those vulnerabilities entirely"? Because: that's an extraordinary claim for an OpenBSD supporter to make.
- gonzo 10y ago
  > Every OpenBSD commit is throughly reviewed, [...] You should observe that this didn't happen here. Sam Leffler found that bug, fixed it, and sent OpenBSD the patch while bringing the "fast IPSec"stack to FreeBSD. OpenBSD silently patched it. The whole thing only came to light years later, when the accusations were made.
  - aortega 10y ago
    >You should observe that this didn't happen here. I bet it now happens.
    - symtos 10y ago
      you bet? yet in your previous comment you stated it as a fact
      - aortega 10y ago
        yes.
MustardTiger 10y ago
>Since OpenBSD can be backdoored[1] And you link to that not happening? Seems a bit silly.

mulander 10y ago

FreeBSD is pretty anti-secure too. https://vez.mrsk.me/freebsd-defaults.txt https://vez.mrsk.me/freebsd-defaults.txt

akerro 10y ago
Also this: http://networkfilter.blogspot.com/2014/12/security-openbsd-vs-freebsd.html http://networkfilter.blogspot.com/2014/12/security-openbsd-v...
protomyth 10y ago
BSD Now did a rebuttal in Episode 134 http://www.bsdnow.tv/episodes/2016_03_23-marking_up_the_ports_tree http://www.bsdnow.tv/episodes/2016_03_23-marking_up_the_port... IMHO, I found it unconvincing. It soured me on the rest of the episode and its not really my watch as soon as its out podcast anymore. I guess since every segment is basically a FreeBSD segment no matter what OS they are talking about, it had to go that way. YMMV

quisquous 10y ago

I'm lumping Linux in that group because my impression is that Linus is ambivalent about security--it seems to be just another feature to him (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/11/05/net-of-insecurity-the-kernel-of-the-argument/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/11/05/net-of-...). Additionally, with most of the popular distros, once I install the OS, I have to spend a bunch of time locking things down before I do anything else, whereas OpenBSD has pretty good defaults that I can build up from. Also, when Ubuntu, one of the most popular Linux distros, started capturing searches by default, that got me questioning their commitment to privacy. That's not to say there aren't distros and contributors to Linux that care deeply about security--clearly there are. I just don't find the overall ecosystem nor the most popular distros nearly as focused on or as trustworthy on security and privacy. And as the stakes get higher with more of our lives going digital and more companies, states, and criminals trying to take advantage of that trend, I worry. As for OpenBSD vs FreeBSD, I've had an easier time getting OpenBSD working on my hardware and OpenBSD seems to me more concerned with, focused on, and practically innovative on security--that is to say, they don't just introduce new security features that can be configured and used by someone smarter than me, the OpenBSD folks work hard to introduce new security tech that's on by default with no special knowledge required by the end user, i.e. pledge, W^X.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
Then modify the claim to say "some Linux kernels/distros" instead of Linux as a whole. Meanwhile, thanks to CompSci, there's Linux's (eg Criswell's SVA-OS) and FreeBSD's (eg CheriBSD on CHERI) that run with way more security than OpenBSD. They push the state of the art. So, it's a mixed bag. OpenBSD is actually no different. The developers care a lot about security and quality. Yet, the mere fact that I see OpenBSD desktops in Google images running shoddy applications shows many OpenBSD users make similar tradeoffs to what you described of Linux camp. It's just the kernel and select userland that gets their attention to quality due to limited staff (and their preferences).
- neerdowell 10y ago
  > Yet, the mere fact that I see OpenBSD desktops in Google images running shoddy applications shows many OpenBSD users make similar tradeoffs to what you described of Linux camp. Are these "shoddy applications" not more secure on OpenBSD due to the various mitigations applied to userland software?

dijit 10y ago

FreeBSD follows a similar pattern to linux, security at the expense of performance is a regression. the reason people say that Linux is insecure is probably because Linus' stances take a hard line, in that "you must understand what you're doing in order to make a patch". The problem is, QA and auditing is only so good and doesn't always catch the people who really don't know what they're doing.. So Linus is openly hostile to people who do stupid things consistently in some sort of attempt to fend off the others who are doing silly things although perhaps not realising it. That's my impression and it's based on nothing more than an outside perspective so I'm probably way off base, but Linus has certainly been quoted before as saying things like "anybody who pushes for security first is a masturbating monkey", avoiding integrating GRSec and PaX for aeons and it's usually left up to distro maintainers to cherry pick the bug fixes from the mainline kernel branch.

peatmoss 10y ago

I think this line was meant mainly to refer to his closed source iPhone, OS X, and Windows use. Perhaps he means his Linux usage is one of the more mainstream distributions that readily facilitates installation of binary kernel blobs (e.g. wifi, video), or 3rd party closed source software. He may also be calling Linux insecure due to it being less uncompromisingly about security. Same could be said about FreeBSD--they aren't necessarily insecure, but they are not as explicitly focussed on that. OpenBSD invests a great deal here. They have their own fork of Xorg (or was that XFree86?) that runs not as root. As far as I know that's unique amongst libre *nixen. EDIT: this is what I get for starting a response, getting coffee and resuming my reply. We don't have to speculate what the author of is post intended, and his response is better than mine ;-)

creshal 10y ago
> OpenBSD invests a great deal here. They have their own fork of Xorg (or was that XFree86?) that runs not as root. As far as I know that's unique amongst libre *nixen. It's a standard feature of Xorg nowadays, but it's only a feature of vanilla Xorg for a few years.
- Santosh83 10y ago
  I'm probably misunderstanding something but on my system (Ubuntu 14.04 LTS) the X server runs as root & not as my user.
  - creshal 10y ago
    Ubuntu does not enable it by default, as it mixes poorly with some drivers: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Rootless https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Rootless AMD only added KMS to their proprietary driver last year, and Nvidia this year (and IIRC only in a beta driver so far); and systemd makes the permission handling a lot easier. So Ubuntu will transition to it eventually, but didn't have all puzzle pieces until too recently for even 16.04 LTS.

symtos 10y ago

why not freebsd? the freebsd project seem to focus exclusively on post-attack with jails and trustedbsd mac. fbsd has not implemented any of the modern exploit mitigation techniques. i mean, even os x has had full aslr since 2012 lol. some years ago fbsd was forked to hardenedbsd which has aslr, mprotect restrictions, non-exec pages on cpus w/o NX, randomized lib loading order, etc. i guess the freebsd project is too busy fighting meritocracy cus none of it has been merged as far as i can tell. as for linux, plenty has been written on linus' stance on what he considers to be a "security circus"; and the mantra on lkml is still that "a bug is a bug". just watch oss-sec and see distro people wading through kernel commit logs (hyperbole) cus sec-related bugs usually aren't reported downstream

corv 10y ago
FreeBSD has ASLR. https://wiki.freebsd.org/AddressSpaceLayoutRandomization https://wiki.freebsd.org/AddressSpaceLayoutRandomization
- symtos 10y ago
  no. did you read the first paragraph? > FreeBSD lacks basic low-level exploit mitigation, such as Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) the whitepaper you linked was published in 2014 by Shawn Webb, one of the people behind the hardenedbsd fork. that same year a submission for review was opened on phabricator[1] re. merging their aslr work in mainline fbsd. it was closed on 2015-10-19: > Closing this revision. FreeBSD is free to pull from HardenedBSD. another aslr review request was then created on 2016-03-10 by Konstantin Belousov[2]: > This revision needs review, but there are no reviewers specified. that same day he sent a call for testing to freebsd-arch[3]. there is also a bugzilla ticket[4] for the people waiting for freebsd to catch up with 2001. 1: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D473 https://reviews.freebsd.org/D473 2: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D5603 https://reviews.freebsd.org/D5603 3: https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2016-March/017719.html https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2016-March/... 4: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181497 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181497

4ad 10y ago

FreeBSD lacks (or disables) most mitigations OpenBSD (and usually Windows, or some Linux distros) have, like ASLR, stack protector, W^X, PIE applications by default, libc.so symbol randomization, pledge()'d ports, etc. I love FreeBSD, and use it a lot, and I wish these were all implemented, but until then, it pains me that FreeBSD has less mitigations enabled than Windows and good Linux distros.