5 ms·

It feels ontologically wrong to me to constantly beg my own computer for permissions to do things. I always use root on Linux, and my Gentoo machines don't even

It feels ontologically wrong to me to constantly beg my own computer for permissions to do things. I always use root on Linux, and my Gentoo machines don't even have a non-root account. (I get great satisfaction from compiling VLC to let me run it as root as well as patching Dolphin and other apps to not complain about it.) On Windows I always use an admin account and disable all UAC prompts. I've managed to have no incidents since I started this policy a decade ago by simply not downloading malware or using 123 as my password on an open SSH port. Go figure.

smt88 1y ago
So you don't understand why seatbelts were invented and your evidence that they're unnecessary is that you personally haven't gotten into a car accident. "Not downloading malware" is everyone's default stance, but no one can identify all of it. And that's only a single vector out of many. Security flaws exist in even the best operating systems that make you vulnerable even when doing everything "right" (which you emphatically are not).
- jimmaswell 1y ago
  I wear seatbelts (but I'm proud of my state for being the only one not to force adults to) because a car crash is much more likely than being victim to a zero-day vulnerability.
- josephg 1y ago
  My problem with this argument is that my user data is by far the most valuable thing on my computer. Almost nothing that gets protected by “root” really matters much. What I really want is a way to protect all my user data from rogue programs, but I have no way to do that on modern computers. Any program I run with my regular user account can steal or delete all of my data already. When my data is so trivially at risk, who cares if a bad program can also wipe my OS or something? I can reinstall Linux. I can’t get my data back if someone steals it.
  - j0057 1y ago
    macOS does ask you if you want to allow a program to access your files in $HOME. Not sure if it's a perfect solution, but still, it's something. As a more additive approach than just giving up and running everything as root, I think in Linux you could do the same with (a fair amount of effort and) SELinux or AppArmor.
  - anthk 1y ago
    Check Fedora Silveblue, or Kinoite (or the Budgie edition) if you don't like neither KDE nor Gnome. Inmutable OS, it can be set to a rolling channel to get daily updates, you can rollback it from GRUB in case of disasters and, even better, everything non-desktop environment based it's installed from Flatpak and containerized.
  - ndriscoll 1y ago
    That's why you run programs as different users. Background services like nginx or jellyfin get their own users. Have a separate `games` user if you play video games. If you're going to mess with untrustworthy code, make another user first. Don't give world permissions to your home directory.
    - josephg 1y ago
      That might help if nginx has a security vulnerability. But what about all the programs I run as a user? Nobody runs their IDE or “npm install” under separate user accounts. Nor should we have to in order to prevent a package from interacting with my filesystem outside of the project directory.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    > What I really want is a way to protect all my user data from rogue programs, but I have no way to do that on modern computers This is exactly why Qubes OS was created: https://qubes-os.org https://qubes-os.org. My daily driver, can't recommend it enough.
- diogocp 1y ago
  There's a difference between choosing to wear a seatbelt and being chained to the seat by the car manufacturer, who then refuses to release you "for your own safety".
- Wowfunhappy 1y ago
  The difference is that you can take off your seatbelt for a moment if you need to reach into glove compartment. Also, you're statistically much more likely to die from a car crash than a malware attack.
  - Y_Y 1y ago
    > you're statistically much more likely to die from a car crash than a malware attack That's true now, but I honestly don't think it'll be the case in twenty years.
StopDisinfo910 1y ago
I mean, ok, but why? The point of lowering application permission is not to prevent you from doing things. It’s to prevent the application to do things you don’t want. That’s why people try to give apps as little permission as possible and only grant them when they are required. Technically you are one vulnerability away from irremediably losing everything after opening a seemingly innocent file. I am actually convinced the sole reason it doesn’t happen is because it doesn’t make sense to target people doing that because they virtually don’t exist.

smt88 1y ago

So you don't understand why seatbelts were invented and your evidence that they're unnecessary is that you personally haven't gotten into a car accident. "Not downloading malware" is everyone's default stance, but no one can identify all of it. And that's only a single vector out of many. Security flaws exist in even the best operating systems that make you vulnerable even when doing everything "right" (which you emphatically are not).

jimmaswell 1y ago
I wear seatbelts (but I'm proud of my state for being the only one not to force adults to) because a car crash is much more likely than being victim to a zero-day vulnerability.
josephg 1y ago
My problem with this argument is that my user data is by far the most valuable thing on my computer. Almost nothing that gets protected by “root” really matters much. What I really want is a way to protect all my user data from rogue programs, but I have no way to do that on modern computers. Any program I run with my regular user account can steal or delete all of my data already. When my data is so trivially at risk, who cares if a bad program can also wipe my OS or something? I can reinstall Linux. I can’t get my data back if someone steals it.
- j0057 1y ago
  macOS does ask you if you want to allow a program to access your files in $HOME. Not sure if it's a perfect solution, but still, it's something. As a more additive approach than just giving up and running everything as root, I think in Linux you could do the same with (a fair amount of effort and) SELinux or AppArmor.
- anthk 1y ago
  Check Fedora Silveblue, or Kinoite (or the Budgie edition) if you don't like neither KDE nor Gnome. Inmutable OS, it can be set to a rolling channel to get daily updates, you can rollback it from GRUB in case of disasters and, even better, everything non-desktop environment based it's installed from Flatpak and containerized.
- ndriscoll 1y ago
  That's why you run programs as different users. Background services like nginx or jellyfin get their own users. Have a separate `games` user if you play video games. If you're going to mess with untrustworthy code, make another user first. Don't give world permissions to your home directory.
  - josephg 1y ago
    That might help if nginx has a security vulnerability. But what about all the programs I run as a user? Nobody runs their IDE or “npm install” under separate user accounts. Nor should we have to in order to prevent a package from interacting with my filesystem outside of the project directory.
- fsflover 1y ago
  > What I really want is a way to protect all my user data from rogue programs, but I have no way to do that on modern computers This is exactly why Qubes OS was created: https://qubes-os.org https://qubes-os.org. My daily driver, can't recommend it enough.
diogocp 1y ago
There's a difference between choosing to wear a seatbelt and being chained to the seat by the car manufacturer, who then refuses to release you "for your own safety".
Wowfunhappy 1y ago
The difference is that you can take off your seatbelt for a moment if you need to reach into glove compartment. Also, you're statistically much more likely to die from a car crash than a malware attack.
- Y_Y 1y ago
  > you're statistically much more likely to die from a car crash than a malware attack That's true now, but I honestly don't think it'll be the case in twenty years.

StopDisinfo910 1y ago

I mean, ok, but why? The point of lowering application permission is not to prevent you from doing things. It’s to prevent the application to do things you don’t want. That’s why people try to give apps as little permission as possible and only grant them when they are required. Technically you are one vulnerability away from irremediably losing everything after opening a seemingly innocent file. I am actually convinced the sole reason it doesn’t happen is because it doesn’t make sense to target people doing that because they virtually don’t exist.