Live data from Hacker News

LittleSnitch for Linux

obdev.at

41–50 of 489 posts

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#41
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems pedantic and I think you know what they’re questioning and why.

> I think you know what they’re questioning and why. No, not really. And I disagree with the premise, "They must be a target for the various hacking groups out there." How would you even hack them? I'm a developer too; how would you hack me?

Options range from carefully targeted phishing or social engineering attacks to poor opsec and a five dollar wrench.

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#42
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...

This reminded me of running Kerio Personal Firewall. When Kerio ended I switched to either ZA or Comodo firewall, one of them introduced a neat feature of running executables in containers. Made clicking random things so much easier. But the best part with all of these was restricting windows to where it could barely do anything. "RandomXYZ.DLL wants to execute random what and connect to random where? I dont think so MS." lol

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#43
post #19

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.

Doesn't seem to be, I can see LittleSnitch itself connecting to yoyo.org and obdev.at. GP may be referencing a past bug, either in LittleSnitch or macOS.

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems pedantic and I think you know what they’re questioning and why.

If they trust the devs why would they not trust them to not yolo deploy new versions?

because a company worthy of trust doesn't yolo their versions. a company that does yolo versions is not trustworthy.

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#47

Probably should throw it out there that I'm building something inspired by littleSnitch for windows. Currently a bit stealthy about it. But when I crowd source the funding for a code signing cert I'll get it out there. Lots of inspiration from LittleSnitch, in spirit if not actual code.

I'd be curious to hear additional details if you can share - got a timeline, or somewhere I can enter my email address for updates? I'd love to alpha/beta test if you're looking for testers.

I've been a GlassWire user for years, which partially fills the role of LS, but not very well. Aside from the many performance issues I've seen, it's missing a lot of LS essentials. To be fair, I think the focus of GlassWire is more about visualizing traffic on your Windows computer, but I definitely believe there is a need for better Windows network software for power users.

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#48
post #38

>The daemon (littlesnitch --daemon) is proprietary, but free to use and redistribute. Worth noting that it is closed source. Would be worth contributing patches to OpenSnitch to bring it up to parity with Little Snitch. https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch

Thanks for sharing Open Snitch

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#49
post #11
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.…

When I looked at OpenSnitch (years ago), it didn't support running headless on a server. Am I mistaken about this, or has it changed?

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#50
post #26

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?

They don't build their own machines or write their compilers or write their own crpyto code or ... so many other things.
Post reply on HN