Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When will we get secure desktop OSes? (2018)

games.greggman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 102 posts

Re: When will we get secure desktop OSes? (2018)

#61

Post by roenxi »

gentleman11 wrote: post #15

I don't understand the responses in this thread. Does nobody want an OS with a permissions system where you can reliably control access to resources? Or strong app sandboxing by default to keep chrome from sniffing your files (allegedly, this is virus scanning)? There isn't any loss of freedom with those as long as your super user can modify it all - its a gain of freedom in that you can have some control over what y…

Things that used to work will get broken. The fact that taking a screenshot on Wayland took something like a decade to sort out speaks volumes as to the downsides of this approach.

It'll be worth it in the long term, but short term it'll probably hurt.

Re: When will we get secure desktop OSes? (2018)

#62

Post by Const-me »

kebos wrote: post #58
Const-me wrote: post #43

I find it hilarious the article is written by a Chrome developer. Chrome is not a Windows store app. It could have been (MS edge was for years) but it's not. Store apps are substantially more secure than Win32 apps, at the cost of smaller API surface and less permissions.

The article is about sand boxing APIs in the OS. He does mention that app stores are not a solution and gives sound reasons.

> The article is about sand boxing APIs in the OS

At the time of writing, all third-party Windows store apps were running inside of such an API sandbox. Windows did not use virtual machines for that, but the sandbox is quite good nevertheless. AFAIK they used CreateRestrictedToken API to implement that.

> He does mention that app stores are not a solution and gives sound reasons.

Despite one can now technically package any Win32 app into the store now, this does not mean there’s no API sandbox anymore. Developers can still code against UWP APIs only, and the OS will use a sandbox for such apps.

Re: When will we get secure desktop OSes? (2018)

#63

Post by 363722636 »

gentleman11 wrote: post #15

I don't understand the responses in this thread. Does nobody want an OS with a permissions system where you can reliably control access to resources? Or strong app sandboxing by default to keep chrome from sniffing your files (allegedly, this is virus scanning)? There isn't any loss of freedom with those as long as your super user can modify it all - its a gain of freedom in that you can have some control over what y…

I want an os that's useful, streamlined, and can run games without adding an asterisk. That basically locks me into Windows. I've heard lots of great excuses for why things are this way and noted the progress Steam has made in pushing forward gaming on Linux but ultimately there's always a wall or a compromise in what mainstream programs I can use and I'm not the sort of person who can feel good because the worse experience has principles. I don't mind if a job wants me to work with Linux, that's fine, but when I come home I don't want to have to think about edge cases or software equivalents.

Re: When will we get secure desktop OSes? (2018)

#64

Post by wruza »

fsflover wrote: post #60
wruza wrote: post #57

That is a problem. You shouldn't trust apps. You should haven't to trust apps any more than you should have to trust webpages. Apps can be just as evil as a webpage. In fact apps can be more evil because at the moment they aren't sandboxed on Mac or Windows or Linux so they can do far more damage than a webpage. Please no. Leave it to the phones, I don’t want to answer stupid “would you like this app to …” questions…

You can sandbox apps without stupid UI. Have a look at Qubes OS.

It is technical but I am technical myself. When I have to install some shady app or some fs monstrosity like msvs/mssql, I just clone a generic vbox instance and delete it afterwards. There is no need for a special OS to do that (which may have native drivers issues, will it even run gta?)

If my grandma was into computers, I can’t see how qubes os could help her. Downloading and running ransomware in the “finance” isolation or visiting her bank in “recipes” isolation is still possible, because she isn’t techincal, and I’m not her personal system administrator who sets up firewalls and email filtering or provides 24/7 support. I’m not arguing for everyone (obviously regular people needed phone/tablet security), I’m just pointing out that it always comes with strings attached – either hardware or freedom related, which is my personal concern.

Re: When will we get secure desktop OSes? (2018)

#65

Post by elpescado »

userbinator wrote: post #13

This reads like fearmongering paranoia-propaganda for driving people towards the authoritarian centralised walled gardens... The problem is once you give an app perission then you never know when it's turning on the mic or the camera. The microphone and camera are unplugged when not in use. "secure"? No thanks, I'd rather sacrifice some security and keep my freedom. We're already losing the war against general-purpos…

Same here. When I don't want random apps sniffing my files, I just unplug my HDD!

Re: When will we get secure desktop OSes? (2018)

#66

Post by MrStonedOne »

goes_brrrrrr wrote: post #18

While I agree with this article, it's interesting to note that by far the most spying occurs on mobile phones, which are very sandboxed. Maybe because that's where the money is. To be fair, we don't have the other kinds of exploits on phones, like ransomware, so it does show that sandboxing mitigates many risks.

the sandboxing makes it hard to modify applications to remove spyware. the app design for websites keeps you from using adblock to block them,

The entire thing is a captive market that desktops didn't worry about because only trusted apps get installed so the "download our desktop app" spam popups wasn't as effective as the mobile versions, leaving the shady activity to websites that could be modified with extensions to remove unwanted behavior.

Edit: also, fuck safetynet

Re: When will we get secure desktop OSes? (2018)

#67

Post by fsflover »

wruza wrote: post #64
fsflover wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can sandbox apps without stupid UI. Have a look at Qubes OS.

It is technical but I am technical myself. When I have to install some shady app or some fs monstrosity like msvs/mssql, I just clone a generic vbox instance and delete it afterwards. There is no need for a special OS to do that (which may have native drivers issues, will it even run gta?) If my grandma was into computers, I can’t see how qubes os could help her. Downloading and running ransomware in the “finance” is…

> which may have native drivers issues, will it even run gta?

Qubes uses Linux drivers. However, games will not work unless you do GPU passthrough (with second GPU).

> When I have to install some shady app

Good UI allows you to move the line of what "shady" means. You can significantly decrease your trust in apps with a reasonable effort. For instance, I run Zoom in a VM, it feels great.

> If my grandma was into computers, I can’t see how qubes os could help her.

You indeed have to spend some effort to use Qubes OS. However if your grandma cares about security/privacy, she could perhaps use basic Qubes functionality like having two VMs, one for everything trusted and the other for everything untrusted. VMs on Qubes look like normal windows, so it's not that complicated to work with. You have to separate your workflows though.

> I just clone a generic vbox instance and delete it afterwards

Hardware VT-d virtualization is much more secure. Also the GUI is more user-friendly.

Re: When will we get secure desktop OSes? (2018)

#68

Post by binbag »

I'm probably missing something but W10 has for some time had a Privacy dashboard built in that explicitly lists and gets your permission to grant access for apps to things like Camera, Microphone, Location, Account info, Notifications, Contacts, Calendar, Phone calls, Messaging, Tasks, etc etc... in the same way my phone OS does. I'm sure macOS does the same thing too. Is this not good enough or is there a lack of trust in this protection?

Re: When will we get secure desktop OSes? (2018)

#69

Post by snickerer »

_rdvw wrote: post #30

Sandboxing is a huge issue that plagues desktop operating systems. And sadly is it only one piece of the puzzle. Android for example additionally has detailed SELinux policies and extensive compile time hardening. You can sandbox the majority of your apps on desktop Linux today with two simple commands: - sudo apt/dnf install firejail - sudo firecfg Project: https://github.com/netblue30/firejail Intro Video: https://…

Firejail is the solution to the author's concerns.

I only would suggest a whitelist based approach instead of a blacklist approach.

Re: When will we get secure desktop OSes? (2018)

#70

Post by snickerer »

We had this since... 2000? But better.

Sandboxing is not the best solution. Too slow and too high level. The solution is Access Control (Rules) in the kernel, hooked into every kernel function call.

Example: The kernel function for 'read some bytes from a file' is called by a user space process. The kernel function checks the access control rules first. Is this action whitelisted? Is the process x, started from user y, allowed to do this at a weekend, after the user did that other action? And so on.

That idea's most extensive implementation is RSBAC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSBAC — the other and better known one is SELinux.

You should never try to ask a end user to set these rules. For RSBAC a specialist must configure the basic rule set for your system. Later a trained administrator can tweak the running machine if some special rules for a new software are needed.

Post reply on HN