6 ms·

> ... basic unix (and windows) APIs are designed with malicious users, but not malicious programs in mind I beg to disagree. Ubuntu for example has apparmor e

by pawadu 9y ago

> ... basic unix (and windows) APIs are designed with malicious users, but not malicious programs in mind I beg to disagree. Ubuntu for example has apparmor enabled by default [1] and snaps running in containers [2]. And compartmentalization is a huge part of the linux kernel [3]. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppArmor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppArmor [2] https://snapcraft.io/docs/snaps/intro https://snapcraft.io/docs/snaps/intro [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cgroups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cgroups

legulere 9y ago
AppArmor is completely useless for the scenario of malicious programs rather than exploitable programs, as you still need to write profiles for programs. Ubuntu snaps are not sandboxed yet [1] Containers just offer just the same environment as a normal unix. Kernel apis like e.g. Video4Linux or even more basic stuff like the filesystem are not designed for this. How does an app ask the user for permission to use the camera? How does an app ask to open a file outside of its sandbox? Basic things like that are just handwaved away or implemented with extremely complex systems that regularly have security holes. [1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/3063134/linux/ubuntus-snap-packages-arent-yet-as-secure-as-canonicals-marketing-claims.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/3063134/linux/ubuntus-snap-pa...
- kyrofa 9y ago
  > Ubuntu snaps are not sandboxed yet [1] That's quite a blanket statement: of course they are. Snaps are sandboxed by a set of interfaces requested by the snap in question. If the snap requests networking, it gets networking. If it wants to access the sound card, it gets the sound card. Some of these interfaces are more powerful/dangerous than others. If the snap requests X, it gets X. That makes that particular snap certainly less safe, but it says nothing about snaps that don't use the X interface at all. The user can also disallow access to X (though that probably makes the application less useful) by disconnecting that interface: snap disconnect <snapname>:x11

by pawadu 9y ago

legulere 9y ago

AppArmor is completely useless for the scenario of malicious programs rather than exploitable programs, as you still need to write profiles for programs. Ubuntu snaps are not sandboxed yet [1] Containers just offer just the same environment as a normal unix. Kernel apis like e.g. Video4Linux or even more basic stuff like the filesystem are not designed for this. How does an app ask the user for permission to use the camera? How does an app ask to open a file outside of its sandbox? Basic things like that are just handwaved away or implemented with extremely complex systems that regularly have security holes. [1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/3063134/linux/ubuntus-snap-packages-arent-yet-as-secure-as-canonicals-marketing-claims.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/3063134/linux/ubuntus-snap-pa...

kyrofa 9y ago
> Ubuntu snaps are not sandboxed yet [1] That's quite a blanket statement: of course they are. Snaps are sandboxed by a set of interfaces requested by the snap in question. If the snap requests networking, it gets networking. If it wants to access the sound card, it gets the sound card. Some of these interfaces are more powerful/dangerous than others. If the snap requests X, it gets X. That makes that particular snap certainly less safe, but it says nothing about snaps that don't use the X interface at all. The user can also disallow access to X (though that probably makes the application less useful) by disconnecting that interface: snap disconnect <snapname>:x11