Live data from Hacker News

Linux workstation security checklist

github.com

1–10 of 165 posts

Re: Linux workstation security checklist

#4
FireWire is a vulnerability for Linux only because the kernel maintainers want it to be. There's a register in FireWire controllers which controls the address range for which remote memory accesses are valid. It can be set to 0, which locks out that function. The last time I looked, years ago, it was set to allow access to the first 4GB of memory, because the code pre-dated 64 bit systems.

I once proposed setting it to 0. This was rejected because there are kernel debuggers which use it.

Re: Linux workstation security checklist

#5
post #2

Nice list, until... install a closed source product that sends backups offsite (SpiderOak). wtf?

The other backup suggestion's odd too - make a good backup disk passphrase, store it in your password manager. (where's the password manager backed up?)

Re: Linux workstation security checklist

#6
post #4

FireWire is a vulnerability for Linux only because the kernel maintainers want it to be. There's a register in FireWire controllers which controls the address range for which remote memory accesses are valid. It can be set to 0, which locks out that function. The last time I looked, years ago, it was set to allow access to the first 4GB of memory, because the code pre-dated 64 bit systems. I once proposed setting it…

Got a CVE or lkml link?

Re: Linux workstation security checklist

#7
SecureBoot!? Hahahah, Linux Foundation marks this as critical?

I am sorry to laugh, but thank God the LF and others fought tooth and nail for some way to have someone other than Microsoft have the key.

But seriously, did anyone else laugh?

Re: Linux workstation security checklist

#8
Not the soundest security advice I've read recently:

> We recommend that you use the same passphrase for your root password as you use for your LUKS encryption (unless you share your laptop with other trusted people who should be able to unlock the drives, but shouldn't be able to become root). If you are the sole user of the laptop, then having your root password be different from your LUKS password has no meaningful security advantages.

Your root password is much easier to steal than your disk encryption password. Trick the user into running a program that does 'alias sudo=evil-sudo' >> ~/.bashrc, or sniff it from an unrelated X11 window, or use a microphone. A microphone is far more likely to pick up your root password than a password typed once at boot. If the root password is sniffed with a microphone, the attacker might not even have root access to your system over the network. If stolen with evil-sudo or via X11, you might realize you've been compromised before all of your data is exfiltrated. Neither scenario should let the attacker then steal your disks and be able to decrypt all of your data. Unless you follow the advice.

Re: Linux workstation security checklist

#9
post #7

SecureBoot!? Hahahah, Linux Foundation marks this as critical? I am sorry to laugh, but thank God the LF and others fought tooth and nail for some way to have someone other than Microsoft have the key. But seriously, did anyone else laugh?

I didn't laugh but I got a bit suspicious about their true motivations as soon as I saw that.

Re: Linux workstation security checklist

#10
post #8

Not the soundest security advice I've read recently: > We recommend that you use the same passphrase for your root password as you use for your LUKS encryption (unless you share your laptop with other trusted people who should be able to unlock the drives, but shouldn't be able to become root). If you are the sole user of the laptop, then having your root password be different from your LUKS password has no meaningfu…

Maybe prepare a pullrequest for this? ;)
Post reply on HN