5 ms·

Hmm... I don't think this is actually a secure approach, as by default X is not secure. Any client with access can do things like sniff and inject keystrokes (

by comex 10y ago

Hmm... I don't think this is actually a secure approach, as by default X is not secure. Any client with access can do things like sniff and inject keystrokes (even forwarded over SSH, depending on the value of ForwardX11Trusted in ssh_config): http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.de/2011/04/linux-security-circus-on-gui-isolation.html http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.de/2011/04/linux-security... I could be wrong. Apparently X11 has the SECURITY and XACE extensions which are theoretically capable of preventing this, but nobody uses them (except SSH, see above). It's possible that DragonFlyBSD has these integrated somehow and makes the directions secure, but I don't think so.

Zizzle 10y ago
Even if these extensions are being used I'm sure the attack surface of X11, it's extensions and it's drivers is large enough to make it trivial to breach. Even compared to a modern browser like Chrome.
- groovy2shoes 10y ago
  Do you mean Xorg rather than X11? X11 is just a protocol (or a set of protocols, depending on how you look at it). Xorg, on the other hand, is the most popular implementation. There are (were?) others, some of them much smaller in terms of source code (but also features, platform support, etc.).
Fnoord 10y ago
This is written in a DragonFlyBSD context, and I don't think there's Wayland for *BSD (I could be wrong). Also, how does this setup compare with Subgraph OS which uses Xpra? There are better alternatives: Containers. Run your browser in a container. There are some excellent videos explaining how this works on YouTube. VMs. Like Qubes OS. You run your browser in a separate VM as your other applications. This picture explains it rather well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubes_OS#/media/File:Qubes_security_domains.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubes_OS#/media/File:Qubes_sec...
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > I don't think there's Wayland for *BSD Wayland works on FreeBSD, and I've seen some reports of it working on DragonFlyBSD as well.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
gbrown_ 10y ago
> Hmm... I don't think this is actually a secure approach, as by default X is not secure. I think the post is more about containing what the browser has access to in terms of Unix permissions in the event of it being controlled maliciously. The attack vector of X11 is equally applicable with or without the steps in this post.
upofadown 10y ago
>Apparently X11 has the SECURITY and XACE extensions which are theoretically capable of preventing this, but nobody uses them ... My experience is that the SECURITY extension is universal these days using MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1. To do otherwise would be insane as any user on the system would be able to sniff your keystrokes and mess with your windows. That would include utility users and probably even chrooted stuff. However in this case the SECURITY extension is specifically overridden by copying the ~/.Xauthority file to the browser user. So your comment is still valid. The article discusses the performance implications of not doing the override.

by comex 10y ago

Zizzle 10y ago

Even if these extensions are being used I'm sure the attack surface of X11, it's extensions and it's drivers is large enough to make it trivial to breach. Even compared to a modern browser like Chrome.

groovy2shoes 10y ago
Do you mean Xorg rather than X11? X11 is just a protocol (or a set of protocols, depending on how you look at it). Xorg, on the other hand, is the most popular implementation. There are (were?) others, some of them much smaller in terms of source code (but also features, platform support, etc.).

Fnoord 10y ago

This is written in a DragonFlyBSD context, and I don't think there's Wayland for *BSD (I could be wrong). Also, how does this setup compare with Subgraph OS which uses Xpra? There are better alternatives: Containers. Run your browser in a container. There are some excellent videos explaining how this works on YouTube. VMs. Like Qubes OS. You run your browser in a separate VM as your other applications. This picture explains it rather well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubes_OS#/media/File:Qubes_security_domains.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubes_OS#/media/File:Qubes_sec...

JoshTriplett 10y ago
> I don't think there's Wayland for *BSD Wayland works on FreeBSD, and I've seen some reports of it working on DragonFlyBSD as well.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

gbrown_ 10y ago

> Hmm... I don't think this is actually a secure approach, as by default X is not secure. I think the post is more about containing what the browser has access to in terms of Unix permissions in the event of it being controlled maliciously. The attack vector of X11 is equally applicable with or without the steps in this post.

upofadown 10y ago

>Apparently X11 has the SECURITY and XACE extensions which are theoretically capable of preventing this, but nobody uses them ... My experience is that the SECURITY extension is universal these days using MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1. To do otherwise would be insane as any user on the system would be able to sniff your keystrokes and mess with your windows. That would include utility users and probably even chrooted stuff. However in this case the SECURITY extension is specifically overridden by copying the ~/.Xauthority file to the browser user. So your comment is still valid. The article discusses the performance implications of not doing the override.