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

Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 239 posts

Re: Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

#41

Post by wat10000 »

digiown wrote: post #32
loufe wrote: post #27

The lack of integrated sandboxing in windows compared to android/iphone is still frankly unacceptable. I've become increasingly paranoid about running any application on Windows (not that your average linux distro is even remotely better) and yet Apple and Google seem to be far, far ahead in user permissions (especially with GrapheneOS, god bless that team) and isolation of processes. Consumers and businesses deserve…

The sandboxing on mobile platforms puts the OS vendor in a special position to enforce a monopoly on apps and features. Apple enforces it aggressively, while Google only reluctantly so far. It also prevents the user from exerting full control of the system. Apple does it by locking things down directly, while Google punishes you for owning your devices with attestation. There has to be a better way. I think Linux's f…

Those are policy decisions not really connected to the sandboxing technology. They control what sort of signing the system will accept and make it so that it only runs things they approve, and they only approve things that are sandboxed a certain way. The exact same sandboxing could be used with a system where an admin user can decide what gets to run and what kind of sandboxing is required for each thing.

Re: Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

#42

Post by greatgib »

tombert wrote: post #35

I’m not sure I understand what a library OS is; can someone here elaborate?

My understanding of this is that it is a sandbox. Providing a common interface like if it was an OS for the program to run inside, but avoiding the program to use the OS directly.

What is unclear is if it uses its own common ABI or if you use the one of the host os. I don't know why but from the project description I have a little bit of feeling that this is another vibe coded project.

Re: Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

#43

Post by [deleted] »

aktau wrote: post #3
aktau wrote: post #2

From the GitHub page: LiteBox is a sandboxing library OS that drastically cuts down the interface to the host, thereby reducing attack surface. It focuses on easy interop of various "North" shims and "South" platforms. LiteBox is designed for usage in both kernel and non-kernel scenarios. LiteBox exposes a Rust-y nix/rustix-inspired "North" interface when it is provided a Platform interface at its "South". These inte…

More links with discussion: Reddit discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1qw4r71/microsofts_n... Project lead James Morris announcing it on social.kernel.org: https://social.kernel.org/notice/B2xBkzWsBX0NerohSC

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

#44

Post by bri3d »

gdevenyi wrote: post #34

What is a 'library OS'?

It's a library that is linked to in place of an operating system - so whatever interface the OS provided (syscalls+ioctls, SMC methods, etc.) ends up linked / compiled into the application directly, and the "external interface" of the application becomes something different.

This is how most unikernels work; the "OS" is linked directly into the application's address space and the "external interface" becomes either hardware access or hypercalls.

Wine is also arguably a form of "library OS," for example (although it goes deeper than the most strict definition by also re-implementing a lot of the userland libraries).

So for example with this project, you could take a Linux application's codebase, recompile it linked to LiteBox, and run it on SEV-SNP. Or take an OP-TEE TA, link it to LiteBox, and run it on Linux.

The notable thing here is that it tries to cut the interface in the middle down to an intermediate representation that's supposed to be sandbox-able - ie, instead of auditing and limiting hundreds of POSIX syscalls like you might with a traditional kernel capabilities system, you're supposed to be able to control access to just a few primitives that they're condensed down to in the middle.

Re: Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

#45

Post by xjamesmorris »

aktau wrote: post #3
aktau wrote: post #2

From the GitHub page: LiteBox is a sandboxing library OS that drastically cuts down the interface to the host, thereby reducing attack surface. It focuses on easy interop of various "North" shims and "South" platforms. LiteBox is designed for usage in both kernel and non-kernel scenarios. LiteBox exposes a Rust-y nix/rustix-inspired "North" interface when it is provided a Platform interface at its "South". These inte…

More links with discussion: Reddit discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1qw4r71/microsofts_n... Project lead James Morris announcing it on social.kernel.org: https://social.kernel.org/notice/B2xBkzWsBX0NerohSC

FYI, I am not the project lead for Litebox. It is led by Microsoft Research.

Re: Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

#47

Post by wrs »

tombert wrote: post #35

I’m not sure I understand what a library OS is; can someone here elaborate?

A library OS is an OS that is linked directly to your program instead of being a separate program accessed through a syscall to kernel mode. About the same as a “unikernel”, but a more recent term.

Basically it lets your program run directly on a hypervisor VM, though this one will also run as a Linux/Windows/BSD process.

Re: Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

#48

Post by blibble »

portly wrote: post #38
RoyTyrell wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just assume the only thing a human did was name write the initial prompt.

I read this type of (sour) comment more and more on this forum. To me it reads very cynical and I wonder what the author is trying to say with this. Are you perhaps negatively impacted by automatic coding?

we are ALL negatively impacted by generative excrement

I have to use Windows at my day job

and my god, I'd prefer Windows 3.1

Re: Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

#49

Post by johannes1234321 »

sscarduzio wrote: post #15

Can it replace Wine to run Windows apps on Linux?

They say

> It focuses on easy interop of various "North" shims and "South" platforms.

For replacing wine on Linux the "North" would be kernel32 API or similar, the "South" would be Linux sys all API.

However this is meant as a library, thus require linking the Windows program to it and eine is more than the system interface, it has all the GUI parts etc of win32 API

Re: Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

#50

Post by throwoutway »

No mention of starting with a design specification & then tied to formal verification the whole way?

It sounds interesting and a step forward (never heard of library Os itll now), but why won't this run into hundreds of the same security bugs that plague Windows if it's not spec'd and verified?

Post reply on HN