MacOS, iOS, GrapheneOS (and even then, Graphene doesn’t believe themselves to be doing enough due to the fundamental limitations in AOSP)
There is one distro trying, and even they make it clear that they’re bound by the limitations of the Linux desktop’s security model at the moment (SecureBlue).
It is also technically possible to harden Windows to become nearly bulletproof but that usually requires third party software like ThreatLocker.
My source is primarily the GrapheneOS team’s praises for how Apple handles iOS, particularly in Lockdown Mode. There was also a recent situation where they warned their users of “mercenary spyware” attacks.
It’s also a position that many in the SecureBlue community would agree with, which is where I’ve learned the majority of my recent security stuff from.
I mean it’s commendable that Apple makes an effort to keep their users secure from third-party attackers (besides MDM software), but there’s just no telling how much control and privacy violation is going on when they’re keeping their source code secret. (“What do they have to hide? Clearly something.”)
SecureBlue seems interesting, though most of their features look like security theater compared to the default
Suppose this is a fair point. The stuff that is exposed seems to be quite helpful, such as already integrating features like Global Privacy Control long before Google.
As for SecureBlue… a lot of it seems quite extreme even for me but they’re doing good work overall. I was maining their browser for a bit until I realized I was fighting against the current to make it usable for my use case and I felt kind of dirty doing all that to their excellent baseline. But I did grab their sysctl config, commented out 3 or 4 that I didn’t need, and inserted it into my own. I like having more control, but I’ll gladly take a more secure option if it doesn’t affect usability significantly, so I cherrypick fixes liberally from their setup.
Well, it’s more so that I wished the open source community wasn’t as averse to implementing a security model that wasn’t heavily reliant on the systems being obscure. Security through obscurity is a horrid way to do such things, but it seems like that’s the way things were done before I got here.
It would be nice to see the vision of the SecureBlue project come through elsewhere in the desktop Linux world, but any time someone so much as hints at fixing the flagrant security issues of something like the AUR, all they get is dismissal and knuckle dragging in response. I’m not a blind shill for corporate products by any means, I just would like for the community to quit treating security as an afterthought, because it’s truly needed if we want to keep the new converts safe from the looming threats that are coming day after day.
Acknowledging the successes of projects that just so happen to not be community driven isn’t shilling inherently and I’m a little perturbed at that conclusion you immediately jumped to.
My bad then. I’m sorry I thought you were a shill, but those do come through here pretty often to dump their winblow and crApple dung.
As I said in another response, security is difficult to marry with convenience. You can see it on mobile operating systems where a flashlight app asks for network and storage permissions, and users just accept because they can’t be bothered with even reading it.
I too recognise that there is a lot of room to improve, but I’m hopeful that with more attention, linux will become more secure. There will be more brainpower and money flowing into it.
Yeah the real point was that those systems have things in place we could stand to learn from, to do better, and continue to keep people protected. It’s a learning lesson we could stand to be more careful.
I’m cynical of it mostly due to the way people respond when you suggest it in cases like the AUR malware. Speaking of mobile permissions I’m impressed with Voyager (my Lemmy client), it asked for literally nothing!
secureblue is for those whose first priority is using Linux, and second priority is security. secureblue does not claim to be the most secure option available on the desktop. We are limited in that regard by the current state of desktop Linux standardization, tooling, and upstream security development. What we aim for instead is to be the most secure option for those who already intend to use Linux. As such, if security is your first priority, secureblue may not be the best option for you.
If security is your FIRST priority, they outright say their work is limited. So… that’s where I’m getting it from.
Linux is used in security contexts. What do you think Kali Linux is for? There’s a linux distro that is literally a hypervisor to separate everything into VMs (Qubes). Fedora allows you to activate more security options like SELinux (which is also one way Android achieves more security BTW). And I could go on, but it seems you chose to be ignorant before making the claim linux was insecure.
Linux distros babe many flavors and eachallows a different focus.
Many desktop Linux distros have poor security defaults. Fedora even disables the restrictions on ptrace by default, which is strange considering the browser sandbox needs ptrace restrictions in order to function properly. Debian and Ubuntu default to apparmor which is very insecure (remember crackarmor?) and Arch has basically no security ootb and the AUR is essentially NEEDED in order to use it for most things, despite how unvetted and messy it is. Kali is not for daily driving, for the record.
I implore you to read SecureBlue’s documentation which is where the bulk of my knowledge has been from. Even Android is not as secure as it could be, there is a reason that GrapheneOS, the pinnacle of Android security, doesn’t even consider their build of Android secure enough.
Fedora’s choice to have ptrace_scope 0 sure is strange, it seems they had a discussion about it to revert it back to the upstream default of 1.
SEL being important was actually the main reason why in the light of recent kernel vulnerabilities I switched back to openSUSE, after being on Void for a while as inspired by this guide.
That the AUR is insecure lays basically in its name, I really don’t get why people would use for anything but the most niche packages.
What Android is doing well compared to Linux is that it has proper per application compartmentalization, whereas *nix systems would require each program to be run by a different user to separate them, though Linux is also improving in that regard, for example through SEL or the flatpak sandbox.
Linux allows nearly endless customisation. But when making a desktop distro, you have to weigh convenience and security. You can be the most secure OS on the planet, but if nothing can run because of that, nobody will use it.
Go ahead and try to use Fedora with all security options activated. Give it a try and find out how much you like it. I bet that once you have to resolve your first SELinux issue that prevents you from running your favorite application, you’ll start being more lax or drop it all together.
I think already know the answer to this, but which OS do you think is the most secure?
Yeah my primary aim is closer to something secure enough to be protected as long as I am careful, but still usable for modern stuff. My desktop setup has finally gotten to a place I like, but mobile has been really difficult for me, and I genuinely wish I had the privilege to get into the GrapheneOS world.
… Compared to what?
MacOS, iOS, GrapheneOS (and even then, Graphene doesn’t believe themselves to be doing enough due to the fundamental limitations in AOSP)
There is one distro trying, and even they make it clear that they’re bound by the limitations of the Linux desktop’s security model at the moment (SecureBlue).
It is also technically possible to harden Windows to become nearly bulletproof but that usually requires third party software like ThreatLocker.
Do you have a source for that beyond shills and their marketing?
There most definitively are vulnerabilities and backdoors in these OSes. Whether or not we hear of them doesn’t prove otherwise
My source is primarily the GrapheneOS team’s praises for how Apple handles iOS, particularly in Lockdown Mode. There was also a recent situation where they warned their users of “mercenary spyware” attacks.
It’s also a position that many in the SecureBlue community would agree with, which is where I’ve learned the majority of my recent security stuff from.
I mean it’s commendable that Apple makes an effort to keep their users secure from third-party attackers (besides MDM software), but there’s just no telling how much control and privacy violation is going on when they’re keeping their source code secret. (“What do they have to hide? Clearly something.”)
SecureBlue seems interesting, though most of their features look like security theater compared to the default
Suppose this is a fair point. The stuff that is exposed seems to be quite helpful, such as already integrating features like Global Privacy Control long before Google.
As for SecureBlue… a lot of it seems quite extreme even for me but they’re doing good work overall. I was maining their browser for a bit until I realized I was fighting against the current to make it usable for my use case and I felt kind of dirty doing all that to their excellent baseline. But I did grab their sysctl config, commented out 3 or 4 that I didn’t need, and inserted it into my own. I like having more control, but I’ll gladly take a more secure option if it doesn’t affect usability significantly, so I cherrypick fixes liberally from their setup.
A true turfblaster found in our midst.
What is a turfblaster? I’m confused but maybe someone can explain that to me
Astroturfing. Pretending to be grassroots but just being a corporate shill to be for or promote corporate services and products.
Turfblaster is a word for someone who astroturfs.
Well, it’s more so that I wished the open source community wasn’t as averse to implementing a security model that wasn’t heavily reliant on the systems being obscure. Security through obscurity is a horrid way to do such things, but it seems like that’s the way things were done before I got here.
It would be nice to see the vision of the SecureBlue project come through elsewhere in the desktop Linux world, but any time someone so much as hints at fixing the flagrant security issues of something like the AUR, all they get is dismissal and knuckle dragging in response. I’m not a blind shill for corporate products by any means, I just would like for the community to quit treating security as an afterthought, because it’s truly needed if we want to keep the new converts safe from the looming threats that are coming day after day.
Acknowledging the successes of projects that just so happen to not be community driven isn’t shilling inherently and I’m a little perturbed at that conclusion you immediately jumped to.
My bad then. I’m sorry I thought you were a shill, but those do come through here pretty often to dump their winblow and crApple dung.
As I said in another response, security is difficult to marry with convenience. You can see it on mobile operating systems where a flashlight app asks for network and storage permissions, and users just accept because they can’t be bothered with even reading it.
I too recognise that there is a lot of room to improve, but I’m hopeful that with more attention, linux will become more secure. There will be more brainpower and money flowing into it.
Yeah the real point was that those systems have things in place we could stand to learn from, to do better, and continue to keep people protected. It’s a learning lesson we could stand to be more careful.
I’m cynical of it mostly due to the way people respond when you suggest it in cases like the AUR malware. Speaking of mobile permissions I’m impressed with Voyager (my Lemmy client), it asked for literally nothing!
Maybe it is someone who blasts astroturfing? Idk
I mean I guess following the messaging of one of the only explicitly security-focused Linux distros is considered “astro turfing” then? Hmm.
From their site directly:
If security is your FIRST priority, they outright say their work is limited. So… that’s where I’m getting it from.
Linux is used in security contexts. What do you think Kali Linux is for? There’s a linux distro that is literally a hypervisor to separate everything into VMs (Qubes). Fedora allows you to activate more security options like SELinux (which is also one way Android achieves more security BTW). And I could go on, but it seems you chose to be ignorant before making the claim linux was insecure.
Linux distros babe many flavors and eachallows a different focus.
Many desktop Linux distros have poor security defaults. Fedora even disables the restrictions on ptrace by default, which is strange considering the browser sandbox needs ptrace restrictions in order to function properly. Debian and Ubuntu default to apparmor which is very insecure (remember crackarmor?) and Arch has basically no security ootb and the AUR is essentially NEEDED in order to use it for most things, despite how unvetted and messy it is. Kali is not for daily driving, for the record.
I implore you to read SecureBlue’s documentation which is where the bulk of my knowledge has been from. Even Android is not as secure as it could be, there is a reason that GrapheneOS, the pinnacle of Android security, doesn’t even consider their build of Android secure enough.
Fedora’s choice to have ptrace_scope 0 sure is strange, it seems they had a discussion about it to revert it back to the upstream default of 1.
SEL being important was actually the main reason why in the light of recent kernel vulnerabilities I switched back to openSUSE, after being on Void for a while as inspired by this guide.
That the AUR is insecure lays basically in its name, I really don’t get why people would use for anything but the most niche packages.
What Android is doing well compared to Linux is that it has proper per application compartmentalization, whereas *nix systems would require each program to be run by a different user to separate them, though Linux is also improving in that regard, for example through SEL or the flatpak sandbox.
Linux allows nearly endless customisation. But when making a desktop distro, you have to weigh convenience and security. You can be the most secure OS on the planet, but if nothing can run because of that, nobody will use it.
Go ahead and try to use Fedora with all security options activated. Give it a try and find out how much you like it. I bet that once you have to resolve your first SELinux issue that prevents you from running your favorite application, you’ll start being more lax or drop it all together.
I think already know the answer to this, but which OS do you think is the most secure?
If security is your first priority you really just gotta stop using a networked computer, and even an airgapped one would be risky
Yeah my primary aim is closer to something secure enough to be protected as long as I am careful, but still usable for modern stuff. My desktop setup has finally gotten to a place I like, but mobile has been really difficult for me, and I genuinely wish I had the privilege to get into the GrapheneOS world.
deleted by creator