61–70 of 79 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Literally nothing is preventing you from creating your own secure Linux installation on any hardware you've got.
Besides ones technical skills. Not all activists are knowledgeable enough to just roll their own distro.
Those two changes seem particularly important: * Tails 3.0 works on 64-bit computers only and not on 32-bit computers anymore. Dropping hardware support, even for a small portion of our user base, is always a hard decision to make but being 64-bit only has important security and reliability benefits. For example, to protect against some types of security exploits, support for the NX bit is compulsory and most binarie…
If they don't have any usage data, I think, they should provide old version and support it with critical security updates. If they have usage data, it depends, I guess.
Those two changes seem particularly important: * Tails 3.0 works on 64-bit computers only and not on 32-bit computers anymore. Dropping hardware support, even for a small portion of our user base, is always a hard decision to make but being 64-bit only has important security and reliability benefits. For example, to protect against some types of security exploits, support for the NX bit is compulsory and most binarie…
Those two changes seem particularly important: * Tails 3.0 works on 64-bit computers only and not on 32-bit computers anymore. Dropping hardware support, even for a small portion of our user base, is always a hard decision to make but being 64-bit only has important security and reliability benefits. For example, to protect against some types of security exploits, support for the NX bit is compulsory and most binarie…
I still occasionally use My Asus 1000HE (early 2009) and my Sony Vaio FE11S (2006), both still run fine with Arch/Ubuntu and Mate. Getting more and more difficult to find distro's though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love Chrome but I'm sure in some way it reports what I'm doing to Google. Why not just use Firefox?
Whonix is an OS, a modern browser of your choice could be firefox. Whonix runs TOR in a separate VM from your browser/user space. The idea is that even if you get hacked they don't get your IP address since they can only access the internet through the gateway VM that pushes all traffic through TOR.
https://tails.boum.org/news/version_3.0/index.en.html#news-v... says you should run "uname -m" under Tails to see if "your computer is 64-bit". How does that work? Does Tails automatically choose kernel version appropriate for your hardware, or what?
> How does that work? Does Tails automatically choose kernel version appropriate for your hardware, or what? No, you run `uname -m` and then download the appropriate version of Tails (although it appears Tails 3.0 is only available on 64-bit now).
If "uname -m" says "i686" it means that your kernels is 32-bit (or pretends¹ to be so). It doesn't necessarily mean that your hardware is not capable of running a 64-bit kernel.
So unless I'm missing something, the above procedure does not work correctly. Instead, you should run something like this:
$ lscpu | grep -w mode
CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit
Those two changes seem particularly important: * Tails 3.0 works on 64-bit computers only and not on 32-bit computers anymore. Dropping hardware support, even for a small portion of our user base, is always a hard decision to make but being 64-bit only has important security and reliability benefits. For example, to protect against some types of security exploits, support for the NX bit is compulsory and most binarie…
If you're someone buying burner laptops these machines, which are very cheap, are now probably not a good idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From another comment elsewhere in this thread: > Update Tor Browser to 7.0 (based on Firefox 52 ESR) which is multiprocess and paves the way to content sandboxing. This should make it harder to exploit security vulnerabilities in the browser. Firefox 52 ESR sounds like mainline Firefox to me.
Literally the same version of Firefox as underpins Tor Browser will tend, pretty much at all times, to be safer than Tor Browser. You can use the search bar at the bottom of the page to find out why, or search the Internet for "grugq tor browser" if you want more people explaining the issue.
This is absolutely false. Especially if you're considering the alpha versions which include Selfrando.
See "Real-world Exploits against the Tor Browser" pages 9-10 where they conclude,
> The reason is that these function pointers are only accessed through an indirection layer, i.e., memory objects on the heap contain a pointer to a virtual table which is located in the code or data section of the application and contains a number of pointers to virtual functions. Since the attackers can only disclose the virtual table pointer, but not the virtual table itself, as it is not on the heap, they cannot disclose gadget addresses. Note that, when only ASLR is applied, the address of the virtual table is randomized with the same offset as the ROP gadgets. Therefore, such an attack can bypass ASLR but not selfrando.
> We therefore conclude that selfrando can thwart most real-world exploits. Attackers can only succeed in rare cases where they can disclose the complete heap and data section.
[1] : https://people.torproject.org/~gk/misc/Selfrando-Tor-Browser...
For the love of Christ don't use Tor Browser. Every other modern browser, including mainline Firefox, is safer.
If you don't use the Tor Browser you're exposing yourself to all the fingerprinting attacks that the Tor Browser tries to protect from: https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser/design/
Not only that, without the Tor Browser you wont have stream isolation, so all of your website browsing can be watched by a single exit node (whereas with the Tor Browser each site has its own circuit) which makes correlation attacks much damaging (whole browsing history in a session vs 1 site).