3 ms·

Hackable is right. But not always in the positive sense of the word.

by WD-42 2y ago

account42 2y ago
It very much is. I expect programs running on my computer to not be restricted in how they can help me.
ajross 2y ago
FWIW, the threat model you're imagining is an attacker being able to run code to display directly to the desktop using the lowest level native API. A local[1] code exploit at the level of an interactive user is already a huge failure in the modern world. Is that a reasonable argument against using X11? Sure, for some use cases. Is it a good argument for wayland/windows/OSX/whatever to do your tiling WM experimentation? Not really, those environments kinda suck for playing around with. [1] Or "local-ish", your system or a trusted remote has to have been compromised already. Untrusted X11 protocol still exists but is deliberately disabled (and often blocked) everywhere. Even ssh won't forward it anymore unless you dig out the option and turn it on manually.
- boudin 2y ago
  Isn't any app that can access read the x11 socket able to read any input? It's not just running an explicitly malicious app but also the risk of compromising an app which can read the x11 socket (e.g. Firefox)
  - ajross 2y ago
    Yes, exactly. I'm just saying that the response to a remote browser exploit in firefox is more likely to be "YIKES ZERO DAY IN FIREFOX!!!!!" and not "well it's a good thing we're running it in windows so it can't screenshot other apps or inject key events". It's not like it's not a valid argument, just that it's sort of a nitpick. Security is hard, and defense in depth is a thing, but this particular attack surface is way, way back in the "depth" stack for a modern app deployment.
    - superkuh 2y ago
      Javascript has managed to even ruin the linux desktop. Running every random JS application sent to your browser VM makes the browser insecure which means the entire computer can't be trusted. This is the reason things like the waylands enforce a smartphone like model of security where the user's applications aren't allowed to communicate or interact with other elements of the graphical desktop. Applications aren't trusted. So the user isn't trusted. A trade-off not worth it.
      - quotemstr 2y ago
        Huh? What are you trying to say? There's no conflict between distrusting applications and trusting the user. Even on Android (which is pretty paranoid these days), you, the user, can still opt to trust apps with things like accessibility API access and background location. Why exactly should we perpetuate the insecure old single-privilege-level desktop model?
        superkuh 2y ago
        >Why exactly should we perpetuate the insecure old single-privilege-level desktop model? Because after 10 years of heavy development none of the waylands have managed support simple things like screen readers. X11 supports screen readers and innumberable other vital accessibility features that wayland never will be able to. Some waylands might eventually develop extensions for their particular desktop but there won't ever be a way for wayland protocol because it can't. Security theater is more important than accessibility/usability for wayland that leaves many use cases and entire demographics of people out in the cold. So yes, X11, which is still the least worst option. Better to have the ability to do all things than have to wait decades+ for developers to write complex extensions to do things (and just for their DE, causing fragmentation).
  - p_l 2y ago
    It's also why there existed more advanced security extensions for X11 (like security labels for windows), but also why even bare-bones X11 had methods to ensure that only one specific application was getting input, specifically to handle secure input like with passwords.
l72 2y ago
I find it very interesting how much our threat model has changed in the last 10-15 years. We no longer trust even local software, as we have to assume everything is now malicious. Commercial software from "reputable" companies can't be trusted to not pull a ton of analytics and personal data off your computer. We now have to worry about every piece of software being a keylogger and spying on other windows/applications and reporting back. We've had to give up so much flexibility. Wayland certainly focuses on plugging this hole, but it means we've lost all these cool utilities like this one. There was just so much you could do with devilspie, xdotool, and others to make sure my operating system and window environment worked for me. I still really miss X11's Zaphod mode, where you had two independent X sessions (:0.0 and :0.1) on two different monitors, with different window managers and different windowing rules. I miss the days of being able to trust my computer and trust my software.
- singpolyma3 2y ago
  If you can't trust your locally installed software, everything is lost. I understand where this new threat model comes from for some people but I'd rather continue to avoid bad software sources than hamstring my OS in the hopes of avoiding malware I installed on purpose.
  - l72 2y ago
    I agree. But can you trust Zoom? What about Office or Photoshop? Can you trust Websites or your browser anymore? Even open source apps have analytics in them that may not be trustworthy anymore (firefox, audacity, ...).
    - singpolyma3 2y ago
      This is why I don't run Zoom or Office or Photoshop or versions of Firefox or Audacity not distributed by Debian. Browser sandboxes pretty heavily though of course one does want to be a bit careful there too.
    - jrm4 2y ago
      I teach online for a living, and -- yep Zoom through FIREFOX only. Coincidentally, it's also the best experience, for whatever reason it's the only on that supports virtual backgrounds on Linux for me? Neither Chrome nor Desktop seem to work for this.

Hackable is right. But not always in the positive sense of the word.

by WD-42 2y ago

Hackable is right. But not always in the positive sense of the word.

account42 2y ago

It very much is. I expect programs running on my computer to not be restricted in how they can help me.

ajross 2y ago

FWIW, the threat model you're imagining is an attacker being able to run code to display directly to the desktop using the lowest level native API. A local[1] code exploit at the level of an interactive user is already a huge failure in the modern world. Is that a reasonable argument against using X11? Sure, for some use cases. Is it a good argument for wayland/windows/OSX/whatever to do your tiling WM experimentation? Not really, those environments kinda suck for playing around with. [1] Or "local-ish", your system or a trusted remote has to have been compromised already. Untrusted X11 protocol still exists but is deliberately disabled (and often blocked) everywhere. Even ssh won't forward it anymore unless you dig out the option and turn it on manually.

boudin 2y ago
Isn't any app that can access read the x11 socket able to read any input? It's not just running an explicitly malicious app but also the risk of compromising an app which can read the x11 socket (e.g. Firefox)
- ajross 2y ago
  Yes, exactly. I'm just saying that the response to a remote browser exploit in firefox is more likely to be "YIKES ZERO DAY IN FIREFOX!!!!!" and not "well it's a good thing we're running it in windows so it can't screenshot other apps or inject key events". It's not like it's not a valid argument, just that it's sort of a nitpick. Security is hard, and defense in depth is a thing, but this particular attack surface is way, way back in the "depth" stack for a modern app deployment.
  - superkuh 2y ago
    Javascript has managed to even ruin the linux desktop. Running every random JS application sent to your browser VM makes the browser insecure which means the entire computer can't be trusted. This is the reason things like the waylands enforce a smartphone like model of security where the user's applications aren't allowed to communicate or interact with other elements of the graphical desktop. Applications aren't trusted. So the user isn't trusted. A trade-off not worth it.
    - quotemstr 2y ago
      Huh? What are you trying to say? There's no conflict between distrusting applications and trusting the user. Even on Android (which is pretty paranoid these days), you, the user, can still opt to trust apps with things like accessibility API access and background location. Why exactly should we perpetuate the insecure old single-privilege-level desktop model?
      - superkuh 2y ago
        >Why exactly should we perpetuate the insecure old single-privilege-level desktop model? Because after 10 years of heavy development none of the waylands have managed support simple things like screen readers. X11 supports screen readers and innumberable other vital accessibility features that wayland never will be able to. Some waylands might eventually develop extensions for their particular desktop but there won't ever be a way for wayland protocol because it can't. Security theater is more important than accessibility/usability for wayland that leaves many use cases and entire demographics of people out in the cold. So yes, X11, which is still the least worst option. Better to have the ability to do all things than have to wait decades+ for developers to write complex extensions to do things (and just for their DE, causing fragmentation).
- p_l 2y ago
  It's also why there existed more advanced security extensions for X11 (like security labels for windows), but also why even bare-bones X11 had methods to ensure that only one specific application was getting input, specifically to handle secure input like with passwords.

l72 2y ago

I find it very interesting how much our threat model has changed in the last 10-15 years. We no longer trust even local software, as we have to assume everything is now malicious. Commercial software from "reputable" companies can't be trusted to not pull a ton of analytics and personal data off your computer. We now have to worry about every piece of software being a keylogger and spying on other windows/applications and reporting back. We've had to give up so much flexibility. Wayland certainly focuses on plugging this hole, but it means we've lost all these cool utilities like this one. There was just so much you could do with devilspie, xdotool, and others to make sure my operating system and window environment worked for me. I still really miss X11's Zaphod mode, where you had two independent X sessions (:0.0 and :0.1) on two different monitors, with different window managers and different windowing rules. I miss the days of being able to trust my computer and trust my software.

singpolyma3 2y ago
If you can't trust your locally installed software, everything is lost. I understand where this new threat model comes from for some people but I'd rather continue to avoid bad software sources than hamstring my OS in the hopes of avoiding malware I installed on purpose.
- l72 2y ago
  I agree. But can you trust Zoom? What about Office or Photoshop? Can you trust Websites or your browser anymore? Even open source apps have analytics in them that may not be trustworthy anymore (firefox, audacity, ...).
  - singpolyma3 2y ago
    This is why I don't run Zoom or Office or Photoshop or versions of Firefox or Audacity not distributed by Debian. Browser sandboxes pretty heavily though of course one does want to be a bit careful there too.
  - jrm4 2y ago
    I teach online for a living, and -- yep Zoom through FIREFOX only. Coincidentally, it's also the best experience, for whatever reason it's the only on that supports virtual backgrounds on Linux for me? Neither Chrome nor Desktop seem to work for this.