20
Linux (In)security - Article arguing that Linux isn't as secure as people claim. Thoughts?
(madaidans-insecurities.github.io)
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2021
20 points (88.5% liked)
Linux
48145 readers
866 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Running everything sandboxed even if the software that's being run is FOSS and comes from trusted sources doesn't sound too bad though. Just another layer of defense. What are the potential security issues this could cause?
No, but what would be the benefit? Sandboxed are only needed when running untrusted code. That is unavoidable sometimes as the web would be pretty much unusable without javascript. But when someone tries to sell you a sandbox the malware distribution channel usually follows closely behind (I am looking at your Snapstore >:( ).
Just a bunch of stupid bugs can turn your well behaved code into malware. You should not trust any code to do what you think it does, especially if you have written it yourself. If it's possible to enforce fine grained access control and isolation then it should be done.
Imo it would be a better place without it
A bug is not malware (i.e. software intentionally written to do harm). It might get exploited, but that is an entirely different story and usually requires another piece of actual malware to work.
Adding a sandbox to mitigate against bugs might sound like a good idea at first, but in reality it adds bloat and makes people stop actually fixing bugs. And a lot of the impacts of bugs can be more easily mitigated against with general system improvements that actually make the system overall better instead of adding layers of bloat. Take Rust for example: it is a memory safe language that actually improves the system, but of course a sandbox can also mitigate against software written in memory unsafe languages. But hopefully you agree that Rust is the better idea then wrapping everything in a sandbox.
As for Javascript on the web. No it would be a much poorer system overall, with people reverting to shoddy apps to supplement webcontent. Maybe you are having rose tinted glasses or are too young to remember, but the web was not better before widespread javascript use. In fact it had stuff like Shockwave and Flash to do some of what Javascript does today shudder