Live data from Hacker News

Grsecurity Developer Spender's Feelings on the State of Linux Security

grsecurity.net

41–50 of 80 posts

Re: Grsecurity Developer Spender's Feelings on the State of Linux Security

#41
post #27

Grsecurity languishes in (relative) obscurity because no distribution ships it. I know several people who know about it and would pick the option if it was distro-supported. If you don't get automatic updates it's a non-starter. Popularity in distros would put a lot of pressure on the mainline kernel and might get things moving there.

Alpine Linux ships it, and while they're not a major distro, I get the impression they're not "insignificant".

Re: Grsecurity Developer Spender's Feelings on the State of Linux Security

#42
post #14
post #12

> The industry is entirely broken in terms of what it values. Couldn't agree more. I feel that we, as entire IT industry, have failed to provide robustness, security, and privacy after dozens of years of development of Internet technologies. Just take the recent vulnerabilities in Android and iPhones, used everyday by millions of people worldwide. How could that happen after so many billions of dollars invested in th…

I think Google has understood the systemic security problems in Android pretty well since the beginning, but adopted a typical data driven approach: gather data, and when/if phones start getting compromised start figuring out what countermeasures are cost effective.

I wouldn't agree with the statement. The Android app store is filled with apps that steal user data and malicious apps. It only get cleaned up when somebody does some research and tracks things down and it ends up in the press.

Or maybe that it's just cost effective to have others do the work for you?

Re: Grsecurity Developer Spender's Feelings on the State of Linux Security

#43

I would think that everyone here agrees that 'computer' security is in a state of turmoil. Is it possible to design a computing system that fails-safe in the event of a bug in a component, instead of opening the entire system up to exploits. Fails Safe as in the process does nothing or restricts the targeted surface area of the malware.

>A fail-safe or fail-secure device is one that, in the event of a specific type of failure, responds in a way that will cause no harm,

Key statement "Specific type of failure". In theory any particular piece of large software has tens of thousands of fail safes in it all ready. For example, when you send an oversized buffer to an application with input checking it does not explode in a ball of flame (unlike programs from the '90s) and warns you about the problem. But that is where the analogies break down between mechanical items and software, software is far more connected internally than almost all other machines are.

Re: Grsecurity Developer Spender's Feelings on the State of Linux Security

#44
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grsecurity's approach is superior to OpenBSD's, but both are acceptable. FreeBSD is actually behind Linux - it lacks an effective access control framework and did not have ASLR until the latest release. At least they're working on it (TrustedBSD, Capsicum).

FreeBSD supports Mandatory Access Control, implemented as part of the TrustedBSD project. It was introduced in FreeBSD 5.0. Since FreeBSD 7.2, MAC support is enabled by default. The framework is extensible; various MAC modules implement policies such as Biba and Multi-Level Security.

and how much of the system is protected by trusted bsd by default: none of it

how many people ever bother to write and deploy a trustedbsd policy: (to first order approximation) nobody

Defaults matter, a feature matrix checkbox is simply deceptive because the fact something isn't on (and configured) by default often means its an insane amount to work to try to enable it and/or thing are unfixably broken when you do (from a user point of view)

unfortunately both these things are true of trustedBSD

Re: Grsecurity Developer Spender's Feelings on the State of Linux Security

#45
post #27

Grsecurity languishes in (relative) obscurity because no distribution ships it. I know several people who know about it and would pick the option if it was distro-supported. If you don't get automatic updates it's a non-starter. Popularity in distros would put a lot of pressure on the mainline kernel and might get things moving there.

Gentoo-Hardened

Re: Grsecurity Developer Spender's Feelings on the State of Linux Security

#46
post #19

It always make me sad when I hear BSDs are underfunded, OpenBSD was about to "turn off the lights", FreeBSD was in sersious problems before they got 1M$ donation from WhatsApp. Heartbleed bug in OpenSSL? They also didn't have enough (full time) developers to even review the code. Now grsecurity makes me feel bad about it. Everyone uses their software, firewalls, servers, email serves, openssl is everywhere, corporate…

FreeBSD did not have serious problems, they were doing reasonably well. Clearly they can do more now but that is definitely not true.

Sorry if I provided incorrect information, I didn't confirm all of it before posting, just wrote what I read on other sites.I saw they made a huge progress porting C# compiler and VM to BSD, it bodes them well :)

Re: Grsecurity Developer Spender's Feelings on the State of Linux Security

#47
I've been follow grsec for a while now, and I really like the honesty around it. They admit what they are and aren't good at, and as for the product itself (grsec), it has become my go to hardening system for the kernel over SELinux (I know you can combine the two, I don't though). Combined with other measures I think I am doing a pretty good job in balancing out the usability security scale.

If you haven't taken the time to learn grsec, you will thank yourself later if you do. Keep in mind though there was some recent drama with some people/companies not properly attributing grsec, so you want to use current instead of stable imho. Alpine linux has grsec build in, gentoo has some good guides, and so does arch, but I tend to add it to debian.

As far as the state of linux/kernel security, I blame one thing in particular, and that is complexity and amount of code. The many eyes theory has a fault, in that it assumes a lot of people will look at the code and with enough people the bugs (security bugs) will be found. Well the problem is that the linux kernel is now at 10 million+ loc. So even with a shitton of people digging through the code, lots of stuff is going to get missed, and the real problem is that there are a lot less people looking at the code than we all want to think.

I think the primary way we will be able to move to security in the future is in efforts to refactor and reduce complexity of code in general, along with working on making it easier to read (or better commented).

This is one reason why I find minix 3 to be a very interesting project, at <10k loc.

Re: Grsecurity Developer Spender's Feelings on the State of Linux Security

#48
post #27

Grsecurity languishes in (relative) obscurity because no distribution ships it. I know several people who know about it and would pick the option if it was distro-supported. If you don't get automatic updates it's a non-starter. Popularity in distros would put a lot of pressure on the mainline kernel and might get things moving there.

Arch Linux has it in the repos but it's not installed by default of course.

Re: Grsecurity Developer Spender's Feelings on the State of Linux Security

#49
post #20
post #8

That looks like a political problem. Maybe the state should fund security for its citizens - maybe we need some new kind of institutions to do this.

Currently states is looking for a way to legally hack into your phone, computer, tablets, intercept all kind of communication and read offline data without warrant. It's not how that works nowadays.

They do that because nobody demands that they don't.

Re: Grsecurity Developer Spender's Feelings on the State of Linux Security

#50
post #6
post #3

This is the Washington Post interview he wrote this for: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/11/05/net-of-... Source: https://twitter.com/grsecurity/status/662393322699415554 > Very fair article on the topic of Linux security: [...] … Was a pleasure talking with @craigtimberg

The comments in the HN submission must be some new record in middlebrow dismissals. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10515817

I think the article did a terrible disservice to the critics: there's lots of hot air in the article but little devoted to the meat of the critics complaints. Meanwhile, Linus' simple rebuttal is given full time, and seems completely reasonable. It wasn't until I read this post that I felt that the Linux maintainers may be doing some things wrong.
Post reply on HN