5 ms·

Not quite on this topic, but I have always felt Linux security seems lagging behind macOS. Linux seems lacking on sufficient sandboxing. I am also increasingly

by aborsy 6y ago

Not quite on this topic, but I have always felt Linux security seems lagging behind macOS. Linux seems lacking on sufficient sandboxing. I am also increasingly uncomfortable with so many repositories, FOOS on GitHub and users sudoing left and right. I am not sure if I am correct though.

curt15 6y ago
Linux security is technically quite advanced. Namespaces and seccomp-bpf have no parallels in Mac OS land that I'm aware of. It is true that most programs are installed systemwide with no form of sandboxing beyond the usual Unix access controls, but that is starting to change with projects like Flatpak and Snap, which attempt to build a general purpose app sandboxing framework using said security primitives.
smoldesu 6y ago
MacOS is it's own security nightmare, it's just mangled and unrecognizable through so many layers of abstraction. Apple's understanding of security and privacy is fundamentally broken: they protect you against a boogyman, the idea of someone who wants to take your data for exploitative gain. In reality, the paradigm of computer security has completely changed. Apple had been leaking unencrypted user data to third party firms for years, and refused to yield when researchers warned them of the implications. Thunderbolt is rife with security vulnerabilities, some exploits being so advanced that they can give the attacker a raw dump of whatever was in memory (which is ironically even more dangerous thanks to MacOS' lackluster memory management). At the end of the day, securing MacOS is a losing game. Big Sur introduced new, untraceable telemetry at the lowest levels of the system, basically forcing me out of the Mac game. Linux it a breath of fresh air by comparison: not only does my system never phone home, it gets security updates as a first-class citizen in the software world (one of the many perks of being the backbone of most computer infrastructure). Security on Linux is entirely dependent on the user. One of the core Unix philosophies is that a true Unix system won't stop a dumb user from doing something dumb, because that impedes clever people trying to do something clever. The weakest link in the security chain is always the end user, which is why most "hacks" these days are just massive phishing campaigns: it's just an easier attack vector. It doesn't matter if you're on Windows, MacOS, Linux or TempleOS - if you put your credentials into a browser, someone's gonna pwn it. P.S. - If sandboxing is your interest, you should check out Flatpak. I think it should clear up your repo concerns too ;)
- zepto 6y ago
  “a boogyman, the idea of someone who wants to take your data for exploitative gain” Are you seriously claiming this isn’t a real threat?
dralley 6y ago
That depends on the distro. Fedora and RHEL and their derivatives have quite comprehensive SELinux policies. Debian (and derivatives) and SUSE use AppArmor but IIRC with more permissive, looser policies. At least Debian does IIRC. SUSE might put in the extra effort to harden them a bit, I'm unfamiliar with their ecosystem.

by aborsy 6y ago

curt15 6y ago

Linux security is technically quite advanced. Namespaces and seccomp-bpf have no parallels in Mac OS land that I'm aware of. It is true that most programs are installed systemwide with no form of sandboxing beyond the usual Unix access controls, but that is starting to change with projects like Flatpak and Snap, which attempt to build a general purpose app sandboxing framework using said security primitives.

smoldesu 6y ago

MacOS is it's own security nightmare, it's just mangled and unrecognizable through so many layers of abstraction. Apple's understanding of security and privacy is fundamentally broken: they protect you against a boogyman, the idea of someone who wants to take your data for exploitative gain. In reality, the paradigm of computer security has completely changed. Apple had been leaking unencrypted user data to third party firms for years, and refused to yield when researchers warned them of the implications. Thunderbolt is rife with security vulnerabilities, some exploits being so advanced that they can give the attacker a raw dump of whatever was in memory (which is ironically even more dangerous thanks to MacOS' lackluster memory management). At the end of the day, securing MacOS is a losing game. Big Sur introduced new, untraceable telemetry at the lowest levels of the system, basically forcing me out of the Mac game. Linux it a breath of fresh air by comparison: not only does my system never phone home, it gets security updates as a first-class citizen in the software world (one of the many perks of being the backbone of most computer infrastructure). Security on Linux is entirely dependent on the user. One of the core Unix philosophies is that a true Unix system won't stop a dumb user from doing something dumb, because that impedes clever people trying to do something clever. The weakest link in the security chain is always the end user, which is why most "hacks" these days are just massive phishing campaigns: it's just an easier attack vector. It doesn't matter if you're on Windows, MacOS, Linux or TempleOS - if you put your credentials into a browser, someone's gonna pwn it. P.S. - If sandboxing is your interest, you should check out Flatpak. I think it should clear up your repo concerns too ;)

zepto 6y ago
“a boogyman, the idea of someone who wants to take your data for exploitative gain” Are you seriously claiming this isn’t a real threat?

dralley 6y ago

That depends on the distro. Fedora and RHEL and their derivatives have quite comprehensive SELinux policies. Debian (and derivatives) and SUSE use AppArmor but IIRC with more permissive, looser policies. At least Debian does IIRC. SUSE might put in the extra effort to harden them a bit, I'm unfamiliar with their ecosystem.