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

21–30 of 489 posts

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#21

Post by emmelaich »

lapcat wrote: post #9
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.…

> Do you still trust them not to do self-reporting or phoning home, even though it is $0 and closed source? If you trust Little Snitch on Mac, then yes. They've been in business for over 20 years. They're not going to blow their entire business and reputation for a few Linux users.

Yep, I trust the obdev.at / Snitch guys.

I do wonder however, are they sufficiently careful about their processes and own machines to avoid a supply chain attack completely.

They must be a target for the various hacking groups out there.

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#22

Post by weird-eye-issue »

poglet wrote: post #13
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]

That website redirected my browser to a very sketchy website after a couple seconds.

Don't open it.

@dang

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#23

Post by walrus01 »

waterTanuki wrote: post #17

Why would one use this over PiHole?

Completely different thing. A littlesnitch type thing is for all traffic. Pihole is a DNS query thing that prevents various ad content from being loaded. It's also trivially easy for a malicious application with network access to bypass any instance of pihole on your LAN by doing its own DNS over HTTPS lookups to its own set of server(s) by IP.

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#25

Post by laweijfmvo »

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...

isn’t this essentially built into Windows these days? although it seems to come with a lot of programs pre-approved.

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#26

Post by lapcat »

emmelaich wrote: post #21
lapcat wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you still trust them not to do self-reporting or phoning home, even though it is $0 and closed source? If you trust Little Snitch on Mac, then yes. They've been in business for over 20 years. They're not going to blow their entire business and reputation for a few Linux users.

Yep, I trust the obdev.at / Snitch guys. I do wonder however, are they sufficiently careful about their processes and own machines to avoid a supply chain attack completely. They must be a target for the various hacking groups out there.

This comment seems a bit confused.

A supply chain attack doesn't directly attack an end developer but rather a supplier of the developer. So who or what is the supplier in this case?

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#27

Post by jiveturkey »

serious_angel wrote: post #16

> 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 gi…

I guess you haven't actually implemented anything in eBPF.

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#30

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

lapcat wrote: post #26
emmelaich wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, I trust the obdev.at / Snitch guys. I do wonder however, are they sufficiently careful about their processes and own machines to avoid a supply chain attack completely. They must be a target for the various hacking groups out there.

This comment seems a bit confused. A supply chain attack doesn't directly attack an end developer but rather a supplier of the developer. So who or what is the supplier in this case?

This seems pedantic and I think you know what they’re questioning and why.
Post reply on HN