> The macOS version uses deep packet inspection to do this more reliably. That's not an option here. Isn't MacOS just *nix under the hood? Genuinely curious about this difference.
[deleted]
LittleSnitch for Linux
61–70 of 489 posts
Re: LittleSnitch for Linux
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> They don't build their own machines or write their compilers or write their own crpyto code or ... so many other things.
An attack on any of these things has nothing specifically to do with the developers of Little Snitch and would have vastly more widespread and important effects.
Why would you even be talking about Little Snitch if a compiler were compromised?!? Your paranoia here is bizarrely narrow. Little Snitch would be the least of our problems in that case.
Re: LittleSnitch for Linux
#63As articulated in the author's own blog post:
https://obdev.at/blog/little-snitch-for-linux/
The core issue is simple and uncomfortable: through automatic updates, a vendor can run any code, with any privileges, on your machine, at any time.
-----
If the author is serious about this, then they should make their own program completely open source, and make builds bit-for-bit reproducible.
For all I know, the proprietary Little Snitch daemon, or even the binaries they're distributing for the open source components, contain backdoors that can be remotely activated to run any code, with any privileges, on your machine, at any time.
Re: LittleSnitch for Linux
#64Okay hear me out, I use little snitch for a while. Great product. Love finding out what phones where. I make every single request (except my browser, because I'm fine with their sandbox) block until I approve.
Recently I was wondering how you really have to trust something like little snitch given its a full kernel extension effectively able to MITM your whole network stack.
So I went digging (and asked some agents to deep research), and I couldn't find much interesting about the company or its leadership at all.
All a long way to say, anyone know anything about this company?
Re: LittleSnitch for Linux
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wa…
To clarify, I'm aware that pihole is not intended to run on a client OS, and doesn't monitor at a process level. I'm focused on the intended effect rather than the process itself (blocking malicious/ad servers). And I think I framed my initial question incorrectly as if LS and PiHole as subtitutes. It's perfectly fine and even preferrable to use both as layered protection. I'm just thinking however when it comes for…
LS seems to not be claiming any security promise on Linux because it can't make any guarantees given eBPF limitations. But the entire purpose is different and there is very little overlap in my view. PiHole is entirely (I think?) just applying the blocklist made easy. LS allows you to build the blocklist in real time.
I would guess that to the extent the blocklists include things that are loaded by applications and not websites, they are almost entirely built by users of something like LittleSnitch or OpenSnitch. This is also entirely doable with wireshark logs, but I think that requires more infrastructure to build into usable lists.
Re: LittleSnitch for Linux
#66Okay hear me out, I use little snitch for a while. Great product. Love finding out what phones where. I make every single request (except my browser, because I'm fine with their sandbox) block until I approve. Recently I was wondering how you really have to trust something like little snitch given its a full kernel extension effectively able to MITM your whole network stack. So I went digging (and asked some agents t…
> All a long way to say, anyone know anything about this company?
Yes, they are indie Mac developers who have been in business for more than 20 years, and Little Snitch for Mac is beloved by many users for a long time.
Re: LittleSnitch for Linux
#67> The macOS version uses deep packet inspection to do this more reliably. That's not an option here. Isn't MacOS just *nix under the hood? Genuinely curious about this difference.
BSD family with fewer GPL parts each year
Re: LittleSnitch for Linux
#68> The macOS version uses deep packet inspection to do this more reliably. That's not an option here. Isn't MacOS just *nix under the hood? Genuinely curious about this difference.
More the opposite. macOS is a veneer of nix, but underneath it is the XNU microkernel. Lots more nuance since Apple took over and added a lot of their own performance and API improvements to
Re: LittleSnitch for Linux
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
That seems... not correct? The comment was asking about preventing a compromised supplier for the developers. A supply chain attack can be anywhere in the supply chain to the target. If I, the end user, am the target, then a supply chain attack compromising the developer of LittleSnitch is effective. I may then be a conduit to compromising other software or components, and would both I and LittleSnitch would be part…
> If I, the end user, am the target
You're not a target, anonymous rando.
Re: LittleSnitch for Linux
#70I 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.
No, the Windows firewall in its default configuration does not restrict outbound connections in any way. Any application can make any outbound connection it wants. If an application attempts to listen for incoming connections from external sources and there is not an existing policy, Windows will pop up a dialog asking the user if they want to allow this and if so whether it should be allowed to listen on all networks, only networks marked as "private", or for domain-bound corporate computers only networks where the domain controller is reachable.
It can be manually configured with very detailed policies, but you have to know where to go to find those controls.
It's been a while since I used ZoneAlarm or Little Snitch, but the last time I used either one the default behavior was instead that any connection attempt or attempt to listen for which there was not a policy would result in a dialog showing all the details about what application is looking to connect to or receive connections from what as well as a variety of options for creating a policy or even not creating a policy and just deciding whether that one connection would be allowed.
Also back when I used ZoneAlarm I had dialup so the taskbar addon they had which showed realtime bandwidth usage and what applications had active connections was really useful. It also had a big red "Stop" button that would immediately disable all connections, which thinking about it in retrospect really makes me miss the more innocent days of the internet.