45 ms·

I'm pretty sure, that the BSD family is pretty mature and secure. Linux is just good enough for most people.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
charcircuit 1y ago
>is pretty mature and secure They are still missing something like capability based security like iOS and Android have where apps have to be granted access to use things like files or the camera. It may have been considered secure a couple decades ago, but they have fallen behind the competiton.
- NexRebular 1y ago
  > They are still missing something like capability based security ...like Capsicum? https://wiki.freebsd.org/Capsicum https://wiki.freebsd.org/Capsicum
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    No, that requires explicit changes by programs to use meaning that malware can ignore it and steal your browser's cookies and take secret photos with your webcam.
    - NexRebular 1y ago
      So the capability-based security framework is not missing unlike your original statement?
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        My original statement is about how users have to explicitly give programs access to the files and the webcam before they can use them. This is missing.
- 8fingerlouie 1y ago
  You can use Jails and limit access to hardware resources for each jail. Still not as dynamic, but will get the job done.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    Sure, but this is not done automatically for the user.
    - bee_rider 1y ago
      For the types of computers BSD is typically run on, just unplug the webcam.
- wahern 1y ago
  FreeBSD literally has Capsicum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsicum_(Unix) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsicum_(Unix) That might be the most pure capability system out of all of them, though it's not something that works without application modification (yet). Android and iOS applications can automatically work with the native capability framework because they rely on higher-level SDK APIs. But AFAIU those capability systems are very coarse-grained, in the sense that it's difficult leverage the capability system internally within a single application. And keeping lower-level APIs (e.g. for C and POSIX filesystem I/O) nominally working (if at all) requires some impure hacks. All of which makes them very similar to FreeBSD Jails or Linux containers in that respect. I wouldn't consider any of these systems "secure", though, as a practical matter. In terms of preventing a breakout, I'd trust an application on OpenBSD with strict pledge and unveil limits, or a Linux process in a classic seccomp sandbox (i.e. only read, write, and exit syscalls), more than any of those other systems. Maybe Capsicum, too, but I'm not familiar enough with the implementation to know how well it limits kernel code surface area. But any application that can poke at (directly or indirectly) complicated hardware, like the GPU, is highly problematic unless there are proofs of correctness for any series of inputs that can be sent by the process (which I don't think is the case).
- resource_waste 1y ago
  iOS so so insecure that thousands of people have been hacked and at least 1 person was killed. The last place in security is iOS.
- o11c 1y ago
  IMO, the real problem with trying to enforce capability-based systems on desktop/server environments is the correct API isn't implemented. `capabilities(7)` is only a tiny subset of `credentials(7)`, `PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS` is an abomination, `SCM_RIGHTS` has warts, and `close_range` is fundamentally braindead. We need at least the following sets: effective, permitted, bounding (per escalation method?), and the ability to make a copy of all of the preceding to automatically apply to a child (or to ourselves if we request an atomic change). Linux's `inheritable` set is just confusing, and confusion means people will use it wrong. At least we aren't Windows.
8fingerlouie 1y ago
A big part of the difference is that the BSDs are designed by a governing committee. They usually don't have 15 different solutions for the same problem, but instead 2-3 solutions that work well. Take filesystems, the official filesystems are UFS(1/2) and ZFS. They have GEOM as LVM and LUKS and more. That being said, the majority of money and development goes into Linux, which by itself may make it a better system (eventually). Edit: Of course UFS is not deprecated.
- assimpleaspossi 1y ago
  UFS is not deprecated on FreeBSD.
  - hxorr 1y ago
    I believe it is the default on netBSD
- graemep 1y ago
  > A big part of the difference is that the BSDs are designed by a governing committee. They usually don't have 15 different solutions for the same problem, but instead 2-3 solutions that work well. The right comparison is not between a particular BSD and Linux, its between a particular BSD and a Linux distro.
  - jeltz 1y ago
    I feel the BSDs are much more different from each other than the average Linux distros are.
    - graemep 1y ago
      Average/most popular distros, maybe. The full range of distros are very different from each other. Consider Void, Alpine, Gentoo, Chimera, NixOS..... Different C libraries, init systems, different default command line utilities....
NexRebular 1y ago
> I'm pretty sure, that the BSD family is pretty mature and secure. Not to mention illumos-based systems too.
- johannes1234321 1y ago
  I ran Open Solaris for a while on my Laptop and it's quite nice. However the lack of support by practically any software vendor made many things a pain. Since then even more stuff went to the Web, but I really I doubt Illumos got any extra traction.
  - NexRebular 1y ago
    Most of our server infrastructure runs on illumos at $work. SmartOS/Triton handles our "cloud" and OmniOS runs our storage. The linux monoculture problem luckily can still be handled with zones and bhyve, and I do trust illumos developers' competence to deliver good quality secure software a lot more than linux developers' as well. Now if FreeBSD (or indeed illumos) would get CUDA-support we could stop using linux for GPU nodes too.
    - throw0101b 1y ago
      > Now if FreeBSD (or indeed illumos) would get CUDA-support we could stop using linux for GPU nodes too. Could you not run Linux CUDA binaries under FreeBSD's Linuxulator?
      - NexRebular 1y ago
        It is possible, yes, but I would prefer to have full linux-free support for production use. There is on-going work for FreeBSD Cuda, though[0]. Just have to wait and see. [0] https://www.freebsd.org/status/report-2024-04-2024-06/#_partnerships_and_research https://www.freebsd.org/status/report-2024-04-2024-06/#_part...
bee_rider 1y ago
BSD doesn’t count, everybody agrees it is the best OS they aren’t using.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

>is pretty mature and secure They are still missing something like capability based security like iOS and Android have where apps have to be granted access to use things like files or the camera. It may have been considered secure a couple decades ago, but they have fallen behind the competiton.

NexRebular 1y ago
> They are still missing something like capability based security ...like Capsicum? https://wiki.freebsd.org/Capsicum https://wiki.freebsd.org/Capsicum
- charcircuit 1y ago
  No, that requires explicit changes by programs to use meaning that malware can ignore it and steal your browser's cookies and take secret photos with your webcam.
  - NexRebular 1y ago
    So the capability-based security framework is not missing unlike your original statement?
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      My original statement is about how users have to explicitly give programs access to the files and the webcam before they can use them. This is missing.
8fingerlouie 1y ago
You can use Jails and limit access to hardware resources for each jail. Still not as dynamic, but will get the job done.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  Sure, but this is not done automatically for the user.
  - bee_rider 1y ago
    For the types of computers BSD is typically run on, just unplug the webcam.
wahern 1y ago
FreeBSD literally has Capsicum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsicum_(Unix) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsicum_(Unix) That might be the most pure capability system out of all of them, though it's not something that works without application modification (yet). Android and iOS applications can automatically work with the native capability framework because they rely on higher-level SDK APIs. But AFAIU those capability systems are very coarse-grained, in the sense that it's difficult leverage the capability system internally within a single application. And keeping lower-level APIs (e.g. for C and POSIX filesystem I/O) nominally working (if at all) requires some impure hacks. All of which makes them very similar to FreeBSD Jails or Linux containers in that respect. I wouldn't consider any of these systems "secure", though, as a practical matter. In terms of preventing a breakout, I'd trust an application on OpenBSD with strict pledge and unveil limits, or a Linux process in a classic seccomp sandbox (i.e. only read, write, and exit syscalls), more than any of those other systems. Maybe Capsicum, too, but I'm not familiar enough with the implementation to know how well it limits kernel code surface area. But any application that can poke at (directly or indirectly) complicated hardware, like the GPU, is highly problematic unless there are proofs of correctness for any series of inputs that can be sent by the process (which I don't think is the case).
resource_waste 1y ago
iOS so so insecure that thousands of people have been hacked and at least 1 person was killed. The last place in security is iOS.
o11c 1y ago
IMO, the real problem with trying to enforce capability-based systems on desktop/server environments is the correct API isn't implemented. `capabilities(7)` is only a tiny subset of `credentials(7)`, `PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS` is an abomination, `SCM_RIGHTS` has warts, and `close_range` is fundamentally braindead. We need at least the following sets: effective, permitted, bounding (per escalation method?), and the ability to make a copy of all of the preceding to automatically apply to a child (or to ourselves if we request an atomic change). Linux's `inheritable` set is just confusing, and confusion means people will use it wrong. At least we aren't Windows.

8fingerlouie 1y ago

A big part of the difference is that the BSDs are designed by a governing committee. They usually don't have 15 different solutions for the same problem, but instead 2-3 solutions that work well. Take filesystems, the official filesystems are UFS(1/2) and ZFS. They have GEOM as LVM and LUKS and more. That being said, the majority of money and development goes into Linux, which by itself may make it a better system (eventually). Edit: Of course UFS is not deprecated.

assimpleaspossi 1y ago
UFS is not deprecated on FreeBSD.
- hxorr 1y ago
  I believe it is the default on netBSD
graemep 1y ago
> A big part of the difference is that the BSDs are designed by a governing committee. They usually don't have 15 different solutions for the same problem, but instead 2-3 solutions that work well. The right comparison is not between a particular BSD and Linux, its between a particular BSD and a Linux distro.
- jeltz 1y ago
  I feel the BSDs are much more different from each other than the average Linux distros are.
  - graemep 1y ago
    Average/most popular distros, maybe. The full range of distros are very different from each other. Consider Void, Alpine, Gentoo, Chimera, NixOS..... Different C libraries, init systems, different default command line utilities....

NexRebular 1y ago

> I'm pretty sure, that the BSD family is pretty mature and secure. Not to mention illumos-based systems too.

johannes1234321 1y ago
I ran Open Solaris for a while on my Laptop and it's quite nice. However the lack of support by practically any software vendor made many things a pain. Since then even more stuff went to the Web, but I really I doubt Illumos got any extra traction.
- NexRebular 1y ago
  Most of our server infrastructure runs on illumos at $work. SmartOS/Triton handles our "cloud" and OmniOS runs our storage. The linux monoculture problem luckily can still be handled with zones and bhyve, and I do trust illumos developers' competence to deliver good quality secure software a lot more than linux developers' as well. Now if FreeBSD (or indeed illumos) would get CUDA-support we could stop using linux for GPU nodes too.
  - throw0101b 1y ago
    > Now if FreeBSD (or indeed illumos) would get CUDA-support we could stop using linux for GPU nodes too. Could you not run Linux CUDA binaries under FreeBSD's Linuxulator?
    - NexRebular 1y ago
      It is possible, yes, but I would prefer to have full linux-free support for production use. There is on-going work for FreeBSD Cuda, though[0]. Just have to wait and see. [0] https://www.freebsd.org/status/report-2024-04-2024-06/#_partnerships_and_research https://www.freebsd.org/status/report-2024-04-2024-06/#_part...

bee_rider 1y ago

BSD doesn’t count, everybody agrees it is the best OS they aren’t using.