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

LittleSnitch for Linux

obdev.at

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 489 posts

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#11

Post by haswell »

lapcat wrote: post #7
Bromeo wrote: post #3

How does it compare to opensnitch? https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch

"I researched a bit, found OpenSnitch, several command line tools, and various security systems built for servers. None of these gave me what I wanted: see which process is making which connections, and in the best case deny with a single click." https://obdev.at/blog/little-snitch-for-linux/

I've used OpenSnitch for years, and while LittleSnitch definitely has a better UI for showing which process is making which connections over time, OpenSnitch does a pretty good job here. I get a modal popup when a program that hasn't made a connection tries to make a connection, and I can either allow/deny in one click, or further customize the rule e.g. allowing ntpd to connect, but only to pool.ntp.org on port 123.

Where LittleSnitch is definitely ahead is showing process connections over time after said process has been allowed.

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#12

Post by Cider9986 »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #4

So if this is free to use on linux, what is to stop someone from doing what Colima did to Docker? Aka make a tiny Linux VM on MacOS and package Little Snitch within that?

It barely has any of the features of the MacOS version, there is no shortage of cracks for Little Snitch, and there is Lulu. Other than that, I am not sure.

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#13

Post by poglet »

alhazrod wrote: post #6

I remember before Little Snitch there was ZoneAlarm for Windows[0] (here is a good screenshot[1]). No clue if the current version of ZoneAlarm does anything like that (have not used it in 2 decades). I always found it weird that Linux never really had anything like it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZoneAlarm [1]: https://d2nwkt1g6n1fev.cloudfront.net/helpmax/wp-content/upl...

[flagged]

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#15

Post by papascrubs »

rvz wrote: post #5

Also from [0]. > You can find Little Snitch for Linux here. It is free, and it will stay that way. Don't worry, the authors know that there's no point in charging Linux users. Unlike Mac users. So you might as well make it $0 and the (Linux) crowd goes wild that they don't need to pay a cent. However... > I researched a bit, found OpenSnitch, several command line tools, and various security systems built for servers.…

Two of the three components of LittleSnitch for Linux are open source. The eBPF (kernel portion) and UI are fully open source.

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#16

Post by serious_angel » 

  > The macOS version can make stronger guarantees because it can have more complexity. On Linux, the foundation is eBPF, which is powerful but bounded: it has strict limits on storage size and program complexity. Under heavy traffic, cache tables can overflow, which makes it impossible to reliably tie every network packet to a process or a DNS name.  
  > And reconstructing which hostname was originally looked up for a given IP address requires heuristics rather than certainty. The macOS version uses deep packet inspection to do this more reliably.  
  > That's not an option here.
  > 
  > Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20260409002901/https://obdev.at/products/littlesnitch-linux/index.html
The above feels like an utter AI slop nonsense, sorry. I believe eBPF, the Linux Kernel feature, is absolutely capable for accuracy and perfect processing of network traffic.

Have you ever checked Calico or Cilium, or at least, Oryx?

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#19

Post by p-e-w »

hackingonempty wrote: post #2

LittleSnitch doesn't tattle on itself phoning home.

Is that true? If so, that’s not a good sign. I remember how impressed I was by ZoneAlarm in the early 2000s asking permission for itself to connect to the Internet, using the exact same dialogue it presented for any other program, with no dark patterns suggesting that the user should give preferential treatment to it.

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#20

Post by roughly »

waterTanuki wrote: post #17

Why would one use this over PiHole?

I run both (LS on Mac, at least), they do different things - pi.hole is a great ad blocker which applies to all of the devices on your network. Little Snitch is doing something different - it tells you every call that every app you use is making, and allows you to approve or deny each one. So, you can block telemetry for apps, or you can block certain apps from contacting certain servers, or you can just use it to watch what apps on your system are calling out to where.
Post reply on HN