4 ms·

Linux security is surprisingly weak, and a mess. Are users expected to search for hardening guides, spend time learn all these pieces and implement them secure

by aborsy 3y ago

Linux security is surprisingly weak, and a mess. Are users expected to search for hardening guides, spend time learn all these pieces and implement them securely? Even the system administrators may not know tools such as SeLinux, let alone the end users. It takes a lot of time to learn write SeLinux or AppArmor policies. We need an operating system that is already hardened, preconfigured with secure defaults, and can be a daily driver. It should not need the user “harden” it. I don’t mean OpenBSD: it’s secure because it doesn’t enable much.

5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
You either get a mess like iOS/Android that take everything away from user in the name of "safety", or yet another complicated beast like Qubes that has its own tradeoffs.
- egberts1 3y ago
  https://www.qubes-os.org/ https://www.qubes-os.org/
seanw444 3y ago
> I don’t mean OpenBSD: it’s secure because it doesn’t enable much. If you want it easy for the average joe, it's going to be measurably more insecure. If you want it secure, it's going to be barebones by virtue of intentionally having reduced attack surface. That's just how it goes. Unfortunately, I will concede that default Linux is in an awkward spot of being too insecure to be considered "secure enough", and too difficult for newbies to configure properly.
bamfly 3y ago
> We need an operating system that is already hardened, preconfigured with secure defaults, and can be a daily driver. It should not need the user “harden” it. It'll look like macOS does out-of-the-box. I think everybody here who's not already on macOS hates that, judging from what people post about it. Even though you can disable most of that stuff if you need to. Probably nigh-impossible to get such a thing working with decent UX all the way up through the GUI layer, on Linux. Too fragmented. The pieces are there, but no-one can say "THIS is how it works". I think we're stuck with the current situation, until/unless RedHat decides to create & push something for this that further cements their control over the Linux userspace (which... yeah, that actually might happen, and it'll probably be pretty bad because they seem to have really poor taste when it comes to software design, but we'll all end up stuck with it regardless). Maybe we'll see most distros shipping and enabling "systemd-security" when RH gets around to making it, and ensures that Gnome is extremely hard to package without it.
- aborsy 3y ago
  Basically, a distribution that implements a system similar to Android (which is based on the Linux kernel) for desktop or MacOS. It will take some flexibility from the user, and might annoy the user with permission approvals, but that’s what is needed. I’m surprised that there are so many similar distributions, yet a secure MacOS-like distribution doesn’t exist.
Timber-6539 3y ago
If you are running Linux then 9/10 times the expectation is that you are the system administator. This also means, any hardening/security burden is placed on you. And besides, the whole community is built on user freedom and security-for-everyone can sometimes get in the way of that goal.
7373737373 3y ago
Something like Genode has the correct security foundation, though I'm not sure how practical it is to use as day-to-day OS yet: https://genode.org/ https://genode.org/
JohnFen 3y ago
> We need an operating system that is already hardened, preconfigured with secure defaults There are Linux distros that do this. > It should not need the user “harden” it. Well, the problem is that the more hardened a system is, the more of a pain in the butt the system is to use. Most people (even those who are security-minded) don't want to use a fully "hardened" system, at least as a daily driver.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  > Well, the problem is that the more hardened a system is, the more of a pain in the butt the system is to use. That may be true for Linux, but I think macOS proves that it can be done.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Maybe? I don' t know. The reason I don't use Apple machines is primarily because I find them a pain in the butt to use. (Also, MacOS is really BSD, isn't it? So there's not a million miles between that and Linux, security-wise.)
    - CharlesW 3y ago
      > Maybe? I don't know. FWIW, macOS is my daily driver, and the last security-related hassle I can remember was related to installing an iSCSI kernel extension. IIRC it added 5-10 minutes to the task. > (Also, MacOS is really BSD, isn't it? So there's not a million miles between that and Linux, security-wise.) I wouldn't think so, but my Linux knowledge is shallow enough that I wish there were a secure-by-default Linux distribution that I could safely recommend to neophytes.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        > macOS is my daily driver, and the last security-related hassle I can remember was related to installing an iSCSI kernel extension. There are probably quite a few security-related hassles that you encounter every day, but you're just used to them and they don't bother you. Which is totally fair. In practice, the most intuitive and easy-to-use systems tend to be the ones we have used for long enough that they are second-nature. > I wish there were a secure-by-default Linux distribution that I could safely recommend to neophytes. There very likely is such a thing, honestly. But for the average user, the most popular distros are very likely "secure enough", especially if Windows-level security is considered acceptable.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by aborsy 3y ago

5e92cb50239222b 3y ago

You either get a mess like iOS/Android that take everything away from user in the name of "safety", or yet another complicated beast like Qubes that has its own tradeoffs.

egberts1 3y ago
https://www.qubes-os.org/ https://www.qubes-os.org/

seanw444 3y ago

> I don’t mean OpenBSD: it’s secure because it doesn’t enable much. If you want it easy for the average joe, it's going to be measurably more insecure. If you want it secure, it's going to be barebones by virtue of intentionally having reduced attack surface. That's just how it goes. Unfortunately, I will concede that default Linux is in an awkward spot of being too insecure to be considered "secure enough", and too difficult for newbies to configure properly.

bamfly 3y ago

> We need an operating system that is already hardened, preconfigured with secure defaults, and can be a daily driver. It should not need the user “harden” it. It'll look like macOS does out-of-the-box. I think everybody here who's not already on macOS hates that, judging from what people post about it. Even though you can disable most of that stuff if you need to. Probably nigh-impossible to get such a thing working with decent UX all the way up through the GUI layer, on Linux. Too fragmented. The pieces are there, but no-one can say "THIS is how it works". I think we're stuck with the current situation, until/unless RedHat decides to create & push something for this that further cements their control over the Linux userspace (which... yeah, that actually might happen, and it'll probably be pretty bad because they seem to have really poor taste when it comes to software design, but we'll all end up stuck with it regardless). Maybe we'll see most distros shipping and enabling "systemd-security" when RH gets around to making it, and ensures that Gnome is extremely hard to package without it.

aborsy 3y ago
Basically, a distribution that implements a system similar to Android (which is based on the Linux kernel) for desktop or MacOS. It will take some flexibility from the user, and might annoy the user with permission approvals, but that’s what is needed. I’m surprised that there are so many similar distributions, yet a secure MacOS-like distribution doesn’t exist.

Timber-6539 3y ago

If you are running Linux then 9/10 times the expectation is that you are the system administator. This also means, any hardening/security burden is placed on you. And besides, the whole community is built on user freedom and security-for-everyone can sometimes get in the way of that goal.

7373737373 3y ago

Something like Genode has the correct security foundation, though I'm not sure how practical it is to use as day-to-day OS yet: https://genode.org/ https://genode.org/

JohnFen 3y ago

> We need an operating system that is already hardened, preconfigured with secure defaults There are Linux distros that do this. > It should not need the user “harden” it. Well, the problem is that the more hardened a system is, the more of a pain in the butt the system is to use. Most people (even those who are security-minded) don't want to use a fully "hardened" system, at least as a daily driver.

CharlesW 3y ago
> Well, the problem is that the more hardened a system is, the more of a pain in the butt the system is to use. That may be true for Linux, but I think macOS proves that it can be done.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Maybe? I don' t know. The reason I don't use Apple machines is primarily because I find them a pain in the butt to use. (Also, MacOS is really BSD, isn't it? So there's not a million miles between that and Linux, security-wise.)
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    > Maybe? I don't know. FWIW, macOS is my daily driver, and the last security-related hassle I can remember was related to installing an iSCSI kernel extension. IIRC it added 5-10 minutes to the task. > (Also, MacOS is really BSD, isn't it? So there's not a million miles between that and Linux, security-wise.) I wouldn't think so, but my Linux knowledge is shallow enough that I wish there were a secure-by-default Linux distribution that I could safely recommend to neophytes.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > macOS is my daily driver, and the last security-related hassle I can remember was related to installing an iSCSI kernel extension. There are probably quite a few security-related hassles that you encounter every day, but you're just used to them and they don't bother you. Which is totally fair. In practice, the most intuitive and easy-to-use systems tend to be the ones we have used for long enough that they are second-nature. > I wish there were a secure-by-default Linux distribution that I could safely recommend to neophytes. There very likely is such a thing, honestly. But for the average user, the most popular distros are very likely "secure enough", especially if Windows-level security is considered acceptable.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]