6 ms·

What choice do we have? All other operating systems send your information either to NSA or China. State surveillance reigns supreme.

by tomp 10y ago

valarauca1 10y ago
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux don't.
- zanny 10y ago
  The Intel ME and and AMD PSP are still executing proprietary code on an independent processor in your CPU package all the time, with full system access. Linux cannot do anything about it.
  - valarauca1 10y ago
    Yeah you only FTrace your entire networking stack at watch if it ever sends/receives packets without your knowledge. Or use libpcap and accomplish the same task. Or use a user space packet stack stack and disable your default network interface. I get not everything on the system is pure FOSS. But every binary ball isn't NSA spyware. If you assume that is true, you literally cannot use ANY computer. FOSS OS's make it nothing but a question of work-hours to do the full trust but verify paradigm.
    - adrianN 10y ago
      If you can't trust your processor you can't trust any of your verification chain that runs on said processor.
      - this-dang-guy 10y ago
        Ahem http://rationalviews.com/t/presentation-on-fully-open-source-computing/89 http://rationalviews.com/t/presentation-on-fully-open-source... You could go into that rabbit hole. I'd recommend against it... I lost days reading all the docs and playing with this
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        Ahem what? That proves nothing. Here's a write-up I did on verifying hardware against subversion. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10468624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10468624 It's a hard problem. That's why DARPA is throwing tons of money and brains at it right now. Also why a number of defense contractors maintain their own fabs and packaging plants despite the technology aging.
        this-dang-guy 10y ago
        And your point is? It's not a hard problem. You either trust your fabricator and tools, or you don't. End of freaking story. If you don't, and/or you can't throw a fab plant at it, your options are limited. You can read all the docs on the open CPU stuff (as far as that goes), you can literally do everything from scratch, but unless you're a Nation State or a massive company, you're pretty much wasting your time. /edit: I don't mean this as a criticism of your writeup (where you basically state the same thing), or even some of your other comments (where you state much the same thing). It's literally an issue where there are VERY few people in the entire world capable of doing cutting edge processor design, coding, and implementation. They cost phenomenal amounts of money, and even with the money, people, and the best of intentions - a motivated nation state actor can muck things up. The only real defense we have, as regular people, is to basically see if anything we own is misbehaving. Even that is a specialized skill set and time investment beyond what most folks are interested in committing.
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "you either trust your fabricator and tools, or you don't." Equals you trust blindly or don't trust at all. There's a whole range of verifiability between those two. It's worth exploring. "but unless you're a Nation State or a massive company, you're pretty much wasting your time." There's smaller firms on buying and supply side of the equation benefiting from simpler, easier-to-inspect stuff. Especially for energy or cost savings. Examples include Moore's Forth processors, Java CPU's, Plasma MIPS (FOSS), 16-bitters in smartcards, etc. Those on 0.35 micron or up can have random samples inspected by eye with microscopes if user wants to go extra mile. Alternatively, they at least have black boxes they can analyze or test for conformance to white-box designs they're supposed to be. Or more easily monitor at analog or digital levels for inconsistencies w/ power shut off during such an event. Much more to this topic than you're suggesting.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > But every binary ball isn't NSA spyware. If you assume that is true, you literally cannot use ANY computer. You can use one, but you can expect it's exploited. It might not be a happy fact, but we shouldn't deny it if it's true. The NSA by itself has 40,000 employees, tens of billions in budget, the best tools and tech in the world, and a track record of doing such things. I expect that if they see a valuable vulnerability, they will develop an exploit.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        Most of them aren't exploiting software. I like to instead give the dollar amount they put into backdooring, hacking, or tapping major software or networks: $200+ million a year. Still a staggering amount that supports your point. If they doubt, just ask if they think whatever they're using is safe from all the black hats NSA could hire for just 1% of that amount? And for how long? Answer isn't optimistic...
        jodrellblank 10y ago
        By comparison, the UK government announces £300 million investment to teach children how to join a choir. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thousands-of-children-to-benefit-from-music-and-arts-investment https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thousands-of-children-to-... Priorities. :|
  - aruggirello 10y ago
    Neither can Kasperky OS for the matter.
- norswap 10y ago
  Well except that they have vulnerabilities that the aforementioned agencies can exploit. So pragmatically, it's the same thing. Even disregarding vulnerabilities, these OSes are not secured by design. Keeping your OS secured is a strong trade-off with convenience. Although I guess that if you use OpenBSD, that's a strong signal that you want to go the extra mile in the direction of security.
  - this-dang-guy 10y ago
    I really do need to put more effort into using OpenBSD for my daily stuff. I use it for my router, but my desktop is Linux (Steam. It's because of Steam. I'll be totally honest :D )
gvb 10y ago
Great sweeping accusations require citations to back them up. Without any citations, the above statement is meaningless hyperbole. There are quite a few open source operating systems that you can personally verify that they protect your information appropriately.
- vidoc 10y ago
  > Great sweeping accusations require citations to back them up. Without any citations, the above statement is meaningless hyperbole. That's basically what I was always telling myself in the back of my mind during the latest US election, every time I heard that the Wikileaks DNC email leaks were originating from Russia :D
seanhunter 10y ago
That's a bizarre accusation and very easy to fact-check for yourself. It's trivial to run a packet sniffer and see all the information being sent out of your network. I know for sure that my apple and my linux boxes aren't making any network connections that I don't understand.
- tomp 10y ago
  Huh - I was merely repeating parents (admittedly ridiculous) accusation.
- mark-r 10y ago
  But how do you know your packet sniffer isn't compromised? It's turtles all the way down.
- kbenson 10y ago
  Unless you are running a sniffer on a separate device, you're likely far less sure of that than you think you are. There are multiple components in modern computers that have some level of system access and aren't terribly constrained by the kernel (possibly including the processor on your network card itself), and that's before you get into the kernel itself lying to you (either by design or through a module).

What choice do we have? All other operating systems send your information either to NSA or China. State surveillance reigns supreme.

by tomp 10y ago

What choice do we have? All other operating systems send your information either to NSA or China. State surveillance reigns supreme.

valarauca1 10y ago

FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux don't.

zanny 10y ago
The Intel ME and and AMD PSP are still executing proprietary code on an independent processor in your CPU package all the time, with full system access. Linux cannot do anything about it.
- valarauca1 10y ago
  Yeah you only FTrace your entire networking stack at watch if it ever sends/receives packets without your knowledge. Or use libpcap and accomplish the same task. Or use a user space packet stack stack and disable your default network interface. I get not everything on the system is pure FOSS. But every binary ball isn't NSA spyware. If you assume that is true, you literally cannot use ANY computer. FOSS OS's make it nothing but a question of work-hours to do the full trust but verify paradigm.
  - adrianN 10y ago
    If you can't trust your processor you can't trust any of your verification chain that runs on said processor.
    - this-dang-guy 10y ago
      Ahem http://rationalviews.com/t/presentation-on-fully-open-source-computing/89 http://rationalviews.com/t/presentation-on-fully-open-source... You could go into that rabbit hole. I'd recommend against it... I lost days reading all the docs and playing with this
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        Ahem what? That proves nothing. Here's a write-up I did on verifying hardware against subversion. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10468624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10468624 It's a hard problem. That's why DARPA is throwing tons of money and brains at it right now. Also why a number of defense contractors maintain their own fabs and packaging plants despite the technology aging.
        this-dang-guy 10y ago
        And your point is? It's not a hard problem. You either trust your fabricator and tools, or you don't. End of freaking story. If you don't, and/or you can't throw a fab plant at it, your options are limited. You can read all the docs on the open CPU stuff (as far as that goes), you can literally do everything from scratch, but unless you're a Nation State or a massive company, you're pretty much wasting your time. /edit: I don't mean this as a criticism of your writeup (where you basically state the same thing), or even some of your other comments (where you state much the same thing). It's literally an issue where there are VERY few people in the entire world capable of doing cutting edge processor design, coding, and implementation. They cost phenomenal amounts of money, and even with the money, people, and the best of intentions - a motivated nation state actor can muck things up. The only real defense we have, as regular people, is to basically see if anything we own is misbehaving. Even that is a specialized skill set and time investment beyond what most folks are interested in committing.
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "you either trust your fabricator and tools, or you don't." Equals you trust blindly or don't trust at all. There's a whole range of verifiability between those two. It's worth exploring. "but unless you're a Nation State or a massive company, you're pretty much wasting your time." There's smaller firms on buying and supply side of the equation benefiting from simpler, easier-to-inspect stuff. Especially for energy or cost savings. Examples include Moore's Forth processors, Java CPU's, Plasma MIPS (FOSS), 16-bitters in smartcards, etc. Those on 0.35 micron or up can have random samples inspected by eye with microscopes if user wants to go extra mile. Alternatively, they at least have black boxes they can analyze or test for conformance to white-box designs they're supposed to be. Or more easily monitor at analog or digital levels for inconsistencies w/ power shut off during such an event. Much more to this topic than you're suggesting.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > But every binary ball isn't NSA spyware. If you assume that is true, you literally cannot use ANY computer. You can use one, but you can expect it's exploited. It might not be a happy fact, but we shouldn't deny it if it's true. The NSA by itself has 40,000 employees, tens of billions in budget, the best tools and tech in the world, and a track record of doing such things. I expect that if they see a valuable vulnerability, they will develop an exploit.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Most of them aren't exploiting software. I like to instead give the dollar amount they put into backdooring, hacking, or tapping major software or networks: $200+ million a year. Still a staggering amount that supports your point. If they doubt, just ask if they think whatever they're using is safe from all the black hats NSA could hire for just 1% of that amount? And for how long? Answer isn't optimistic...
      - jodrellblank 10y ago
        By comparison, the UK government announces £300 million investment to teach children how to join a choir. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thousands-of-children-to-benefit-from-music-and-arts-investment https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thousands-of-children-to-... Priorities. :|
- aruggirello 10y ago
  Neither can Kasperky OS for the matter.
norswap 10y ago
Well except that they have vulnerabilities that the aforementioned agencies can exploit. So pragmatically, it's the same thing. Even disregarding vulnerabilities, these OSes are not secured by design. Keeping your OS secured is a strong trade-off with convenience. Although I guess that if you use OpenBSD, that's a strong signal that you want to go the extra mile in the direction of security.
- this-dang-guy 10y ago
  I really do need to put more effort into using OpenBSD for my daily stuff. I use it for my router, but my desktop is Linux (Steam. It's because of Steam. I'll be totally honest :D )

gvb 10y ago

Great sweeping accusations require citations to back them up. Without any citations, the above statement is meaningless hyperbole. There are quite a few open source operating systems that you can personally verify that they protect your information appropriately.

vidoc 10y ago
> Great sweeping accusations require citations to back them up. Without any citations, the above statement is meaningless hyperbole. That's basically what I was always telling myself in the back of my mind during the latest US election, every time I heard that the Wikileaks DNC email leaks were originating from Russia :D

seanhunter 10y ago

That's a bizarre accusation and very easy to fact-check for yourself. It's trivial to run a packet sniffer and see all the information being sent out of your network. I know for sure that my apple and my linux boxes aren't making any network connections that I don't understand.

tomp 10y ago
Huh - I was merely repeating parents (admittedly ridiculous) accusation.
mark-r 10y ago
But how do you know your packet sniffer isn't compromised? It's turtles all the way down.
kbenson 10y ago
Unless you are running a sniffer on a separate device, you're likely far less sure of that than you think you are. There are multiple components in modern computers that have some level of system access and aren't terribly constrained by the kernel (possibly including the processor on your network card itself), and that's before you get into the kernel itself lying to you (either by design or through a module).