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

431–440 of 489 posts

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#431

Post by akimbostrawman »

littlesnitch wrote: post #277
akimbostrawman wrote: post #180

i will never understand why people will flock to this but opensnitch which is just better, fully open and has existed for longer (on linux) gets ignored.

Little Snitch is not there to replace OpenSnitch. It's just an additional option you can choose from. Some people might prefer it, others not.

there is little reason to use two application firewalls at once so at least functionally it can replace it. ofc it will still keep existing regardless and i do appreciate the steps towards going open source.

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#432

Post by thewanderer1983 »

littlesnitch wrote: post #321
thewanderer1983 wrote: post #243

Does little snitch and similar software work against solutions like Paqet? https://github.com/hanselime/paqet

On macOS, it requires access to /dev/bpf . That's why we added filter rules for bpf there. On Linux, we intercept at a level where packets already have an Ethernet header. I hope that Paqet injects before* this layer, but only a test can give the proof.

Thanks for the response. Sorry I should of been less vague. Paqet works on raw sockets with KCP. Though it's intended for good. What's to assume bad actors aren't also using this method to get around solutions like littlesnitch?

A recent example, but not the only is a Iran a botnet, using this to get around detection.

https://cybersecuritynews.com/iran-linked-botnet-exposed-aft...

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#433

Post by nosrepa »

Steltek wrote: post #345
leokennis wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read ZoneAlarm and it was like suddenly a part of my brain that went unvisited for 25 years lit up...

WinAmp skins. Alternate shells for Windows(!). Cygwin because I still played too many games to go full Linux. Yeah...

Goodness I miss litestep

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#434

Post by cromka »

IshKebab wrote: post #427
brainzap wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

does wifi work yet? last year it didnt for me

Wifi and Bluetooth are pretty decent now. As far as I can tell the biggest blockers are: * Laptop battery life. Still in the "it's fine; I get 5 hours!" stage. * Wayland & graphics. It's still a mess. Getting there though. Probably will be ok in about 5 years I'd guess. * RAM management. I don't know why nobody cares about this but when Mac or Windows run low of RAM I don't even notice. With Linux it either hard free…

> * Laptop battery life. Still in the "it's fine; I get 5 hours!" stage.

Not on ARM, though! Getting 8-10h here easily.

> * RAM management

Agreed, since I switched to Linux, I am getting regular OOM on my 16GB laptop.

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#435

Post by cxr »

littlesnitch wrote: post #315
mixedbit wrote: post #230

Recently I was wondering how viable it is to launch a niche, paid tool for Linux. I found that this is a very rare model, most tools are either just free, supported by sponsorship, supported by some paid cloud-based service that accompanies the tool, use an open-core model with paid add-ons. I wonder if the decision of Little Snitch to make the Linux version free forever was also informed by this "no way to make mone…

As the author of Little Snitch for Linux, I can tell you what drives us: we are a small company where people (not investors) make the decisions. It was a personal choice of mine, driven by a gut feeling. I'm curious about the outcome...

The Wikipedia page for Little Snitch indicates that it's written in Objective-C. Is that still the case? Before going with the new implementation, did you attempt (or consider) to port the current codebase (using e.g. Cocotron or GNUStep libraries)? If so, how good or bad of an experience was that?

Why is Little Snitch for Linux™ so hard to find from the company homepage[1] and the product page from the legacy app[2]?

Did the fact that you knew it was going to be made partially open source factor into your decision to develop a new, JS-and-DOM-based UI rather than having build targets for a shared, cross-platform codebase? (E.g. so that you wouldn't end up disclosing the source for the proprietary Mac version?)

1. https://obdev.at/index.html>

2. https://obdev.at/products/littlesnitch/index.html>

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#436

Post by cxr »

cxr wrote: post #435
littlesnitch wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the author of Little Snitch for Linux, I can tell you what drives us: we are a small company where people (not investors) make the decisions. It was a personal choice of mine, driven by a gut feeling. I'm curious about the outcome...

The Wikipedia page for Little Snitch indicates that it's written in Objective-C. Is that still the case? Before going with the new implementation, did you attempt (or consider) to port the current codebase (using e.g. Cocotron or GNUStep libraries)? If so, how good or bad of an experience was that? Why is Little Snitch for Linux™ so hard to find from the company homepage[1] and the product page from the legacy app[2]…

Intentionally not edited to add:

Why are you using minified dependencies (like uPlot.iife.min.js[1] and uPlot.min.css[2]) for a desktop application?

uPlot is also open source (released by Sorokin under MIT), but why aren't you following the terms of its license[3]?

1. https://github.com/obdev/littlesnitch-linux/blob/main/webroo...>

2. https://github.com/obdev/littlesnitch-linux/blob/main/webroo...>

3. https://github.com/leeoniya/uPlot/blob/master/LICENSE>

Re: LittleSnitch for Linux

#440

Post by MarchApril »

supernes wrote: post #165

Tried it on Fedora 43 (6.19.11 x86_64) and it loaded all CPU cores, dumped 50K lines in the journal and failed to start. > Error: the BPF_PROG_LOAD syscall returned Argument list too long (os error 7). > littlesnitch.service: Consumed 3min 38.832s CPU time, 13.7G memory peak.

It crashed my Fedora 43 installation (maxed out CPU and RAM) right after installing from .rpm. After reboot it can't even load plasmashell. I'm typing this after booting into a Fedora 42 backup. 42!
Post reply on HN