4 ms·

As a society, we absolutely have to start actively developing software (OS in the first place) and hardware with privacy as a topmost priority. Using Windows an

As a society, we absolutely have to start actively developing software (OS in the first place) and hardware with privacy as a topmost priority. Using Windows and common Windows apps leaves bizarrely many tracks on the computer. Just take a look at one of the many resources on "computer forensics" and you'll see. And I doubt this can be addressed without decreasing complexity.

deregulateMed 5y ago
I wonder if those supposedly secure Linux distros are actually secure. Anything from MS, Google, and Apple cannot be trusted.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ipaddr 5y ago
  kde linux is popular.
- Anunayj 5y ago
  Well unless you are building everything from source (after auditing software), you end up trusting someone for the executable (packaged by distro maintainers). Distros like Gentoo solve this pretty well by giving a good suite of build tools, Nevertheless it's too bothersome for most users. Arch distributes it's package signing abilities to multiple maintainers who can revoke each other's keys. which imo is better than trusting a downloaded exe signed by Microsoft. Open source has one really good benefit, Having more eyes on the code, which means less likely a bug goes undetected. It also means reduced effort for finding bugs. Though imo Linux is arguably more safer because if it's smaller surface area. I think Linux (with additions like AppArmor/SELinux) is definitely more than enough for most high profile people. That coupled with Good Security practices (not running untrusted binaries, using end-to-end encrypted mediums for communication) imo should deter 99.9% of those surveillance attacks.
  - squarefoot 5y ago
    > Open source has one really good benefit, Having more eyes on the code, which means less likely a bug goes undetected. This a million times. The concept is so simple it doesn't even need proof or examples as solid arguments, but just in case, here's one: the famous Interbase backdoor. Interbase was a database engine by Borland. In 1994 some developer added a hardcoded credential backdoor to ease development, but forgot to remove it in production. The backdoor wasn't malicious, yet still dangerous as it gave administrator privileges to anyone; it went unnoticed for about seven years and multiple versions of the product. In mid 2000, Borland released Interbase as Open Source, and within six months the vulnerability was discovered and fixed. https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2001/03/back_door_security_t.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2001/03/back_door_s...
  - rannor 5y ago
    “more eyes on the code” Unless the code is coming from the University of Minnesota. :)
- pabs3 5y ago
  Even if your software is secure, that does not mean it is private. For example there are all sorts of privacy violations in Debian: https://wiki.debian.org/PrivacyIssues https://wiki.debian.org/PrivacyIssues
theamk 5y ago
This will make things described in the original article even easier. The reason Candiru works is because Windows machines are general computing devices which give users almost complete access to the machine. If you want a machine that malware cannot spy on, you want something non-general and locked down, like an Chromebook or iPhone or some other system with secure boot and mandatory code signing. There must be an authority that decides, “this is password stealer that must be blocked” vs “this is keyboard autocomplete handler and can be allowed”. This requires standardized interfaces, code signing systems, auto updates, solid security boundaries, distributed app whitelists - lots of complex stuff. You can decrease complexity a bit, but if you go too far, you will end up with systems which are easy to compromise and hard to heal.

deregulateMed 5y ago

I wonder if those supposedly secure Linux distros are actually secure. Anything from MS, Google, and Apple cannot be trusted.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ipaddr 5y ago
kde linux is popular.
Anunayj 5y ago
Well unless you are building everything from source (after auditing software), you end up trusting someone for the executable (packaged by distro maintainers). Distros like Gentoo solve this pretty well by giving a good suite of build tools, Nevertheless it's too bothersome for most users. Arch distributes it's package signing abilities to multiple maintainers who can revoke each other's keys. which imo is better than trusting a downloaded exe signed by Microsoft. Open source has one really good benefit, Having more eyes on the code, which means less likely a bug goes undetected. It also means reduced effort for finding bugs. Though imo Linux is arguably more safer because if it's smaller surface area. I think Linux (with additions like AppArmor/SELinux) is definitely more than enough for most high profile people. That coupled with Good Security practices (not running untrusted binaries, using end-to-end encrypted mediums for communication) imo should deter 99.9% of those surveillance attacks.
- squarefoot 5y ago
  > Open source has one really good benefit, Having more eyes on the code, which means less likely a bug goes undetected. This a million times. The concept is so simple it doesn't even need proof or examples as solid arguments, but just in case, here's one: the famous Interbase backdoor. Interbase was a database engine by Borland. In 1994 some developer added a hardcoded credential backdoor to ease development, but forgot to remove it in production. The backdoor wasn't malicious, yet still dangerous as it gave administrator privileges to anyone; it went unnoticed for about seven years and multiple versions of the product. In mid 2000, Borland released Interbase as Open Source, and within six months the vulnerability was discovered and fixed. https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2001/03/back_door_security_t.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2001/03/back_door_s...
- rannor 5y ago
  “more eyes on the code” Unless the code is coming from the University of Minnesota. :)
pabs3 5y ago
Even if your software is secure, that does not mean it is private. For example there are all sorts of privacy violations in Debian: https://wiki.debian.org/PrivacyIssues https://wiki.debian.org/PrivacyIssues

theamk 5y ago

This will make things described in the original article even easier. The reason Candiru works is because Windows machines are general computing devices which give users almost complete access to the machine. If you want a machine that malware cannot spy on, you want something non-general and locked down, like an Chromebook or iPhone or some other system with secure boot and mandatory code signing. There must be an authority that decides, “this is password stealer that must be blocked” vs “this is keyboard autocomplete handler and can be allowed”. This requires standardized interfaces, code signing systems, auto updates, solid security boundaries, distributed app whitelists - lots of complex stuff. You can decrease complexity a bit, but if you go too far, you will end up with systems which are easy to compromise and hard to heal.