3 ms·
If wonder if the way most Linux "apps" work right now is what's keeping Linux from adopting more advanced security measures by default, such as Grsec, AppArmor,
by mtgx 9y ago
If wonder if the way most Linux "apps" work right now is what's keeping Linux from adopting more advanced security measures by default, such as Grsec, AppArmor, SELinux, or even ASLR...
Instead of having one self-contained app that either works on it doesn't on your AppArmor-enabled OS, you have "dependencies".
If a media-player you download doesn't support AppArmor, you can just use one that does. I think it's harder to avoid dependencies like that, if a library used by a whole bunch of programs doesn't support AppArmor.
- xj9 9y agoi'm pretty excited about flatpak et al, because gnu/linux will finally get application sandboxing that is reasonably easy to enforce. the dynamic lib bullshit that the community got hooked has been a huge impediment to implementing good application-level security on the linux desktop imo not so much the fact that they are using dynamic libraries, but the foolish idea that you should keep all of your applications and libraries in a single namespace in a messy pile. plan 9 showed y'all the way, but you don't listen, b/c y'all are obstinate.
- hossbeast 9y agoDid plan 9 not have dynamic libs, or were they namespaced in some way? Would love a link to read about this
- pjmlp 9y agoPlan 9 had dynamic libraries. Limbo, the main language for Inferno, only makes use of dynamic loading. http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/docs.html http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/docs.html
- craftyguy 9y ago> such as Grsec Well, there are totally different reasons (code quality and silly politics) preventing this one from being adopted.