Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Prolific Red Hat Developer Starts Up "Wayland Itches" Project

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
    And isolating processes from the same user has even more drawbacks.
    I disagree, but I dont want to go into details and examples since such an argument would take forever.

    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
    Maybe because I don't want my own user's processes isolated so why should the OS literally force me to?
    My solution is an option, your crap is what forces it on everyone and that's why Wayland is pure garbage.
    That's not true, in fact it is the opposite. My solution is an option, because an user can always give additional privileges to the apps so they can (partially) break isolation where it is needed.

    If isolation is not implemented, or if it is weakly implemented on OS level, then you start running into trouble, because isolating applications is complex and requires lots of features.

    In other words, process isolation is a feature. If OS has it, it can be disabled at will. If an OS doesn't have it, you are screwed.

    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
    You talk as if it's either full-on isolation or none at all. No, that's not the case. Ideally only a few apps would get isolated while the rest which are trustworthy happily co-exist.
    More precisely: Isolation consists of various aspects. On the OS side, there are OS APIs. By default, an application should be fully isolated. Then, a user can give it a network acces privilege (which makes network API available), open file privilege, a privilege to access a certain directory or even a privilege to acces the root filesystem. On display server side, unrelated to OS: desktop window privilege, maybe multiple desktop windows privilege, a mouse privilege (when mouse is above window), a fullscreen privilege and so on.

    Of course, a user is just prompted about all this once during application installation (like how you install addons in Firefox or Chrome), with a list of privileges required, and the user just has to click on a 'yes' button once.

    So, your idea about 'per-app' isolation is wrong. It has to be much more granular than that, if you want a proper process isolation.

    Of course, some applications would get 'fully confined' privileges only, in which case the app can perhaps open a window on a desktop and access stdin/stdout. No network, no filesystem access exept for a special directory for untrusted apps, with a quota for files, and also a limit on max allowed memory allocation.

    When isolation is properly implemented, as described, a user has the power to run ANYTHING whithout being scared that an app can compromize the system. You can run a closed source app, a virus, an app by a shady company, an app from Microsoft, some add-ridden shareware, an app by Russian hackers, a trojan, whatever, the user and OS is always safe.
    Last edited by xfcemint; 17 May 2019, 11:43 AM.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by xfcemint View Post
      When isolation is properly implemented, as described, a user has the power to run ANYTHING whithout being scared that an app can compromize the system. You can run a closed source app, a virus, an app by a shady company, an app from Microsoft, some add-ridden shareware, an app by Russian hackers, a trojan, whatever, the user and OS is always safe.
      Like I said, if you want that isolation, run it as another user. That's how it has always been in Unix land.

      Same reason if you want to run something really dangerous you make a conscious decision and at least try to run it in a VM on top of other isolations. You don't get this by default. Imagine how insane it would be to isolate even stuff like bash or the terminal. Why would my favorite text editor be any different and be isolated by default?

      For example did you know tons of Wine apps broke when they couldn't read memory of another app (same user) and you had to add a kernel sysctl to make them work? Obviously those apps are not malware, they just want to synergize with another one of them, most likely why Windows has more user friendly stuff than what you find on Linux also.

      I don't use a piece of shit mobile OS with full-screen apps that are "independent" of each other. If I wanted that I'd be using Qube OS or whatever it was called where every single app is in a different VM. Yuck.

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by Weasel View Post
        Like I said, if you want that isolation, run it as another user. That's how it has always been in Unix land.
        You are a complete retard. That's not how it's done.

        If you have a risky application, you run it on another computer. After each run, reinstall the OS from an image to be safe.

        Another solution is to have a separate computer for each application. That's how it has always been in the UNIX land.
        Last edited by xfcemint; 18 May 2019, 09:15 AM.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by xfcemint View Post
          You are a complete retard. That's not how it's done.

          If you have a risky application, you run it on another computer. After each run, reinstall the OS from an image to be safe.

          Another solution is to have a separate computer for each application. That's how it has always been in the UNIX land.
          I think you're confusing Unix with Windows here, where everything used to run under Admin. Retard.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
            Linux is not windows. You can not do much harm within a user session. Viruses are rare in Linux and you do backups of your own work and scan your computer with clamtk. So far clamtk has found trojans in ~/.cache/mozilla folder and similar web browser caches.
            Yes, but I find it rather incovenient to work as two different users. The applications that are run by different users cannot easily cooperate synergistically. Can applications by two different users share a desktop session? A clipboard? It's the exact opposite of what Weasel claims, running apps as two different users is cumbersome.

            If you try to make it less cumbersome by giving the second user additional privileges, then it becomes insecure.

            And I don't like workarounds. Especially when security is in question.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by debianxfce View Post

              You can use virtualbox. The clipboard and file sharing works after installing a virtualbox plugin.
              Yep, you can use VirtualBox, or any other emulator/hypervisor out there. And VirtualBox is nice because it has snapshots.

              The problem is in the concept called "level of integration". Which would be low for virtualbox. But it does have the shared clipboard. It's missing UNIX pipes, though. Yeah, that's a bummer, if I use VirtualBox, I cannot pipe freely an application inside it with the ones outside. That is a kind-of anti-Unix. What a bummer.
              Last edited by xfcemint; 19 May 2019, 12:53 PM.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by debianxfce View Post

                Linux is not windows. You can not do much harm within a user session.
                That's just nonsense...

                Last edited by Slithery; 19 May 2019, 02:36 PM.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
                  Linux is not windows. You can not do much harm within a user session.
                  Originally posted by Slithery View Post
                  That's just nonsense...
                  I think that debianxfce was reffering to a separate user account. That one would lack Gmail, Paypal etc. Possibly it can even lack network access.

                  But then you don't get integration of user's desktop session.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by xfcemint View Post
                    The applications that are run by different users cannot easily cooperate synergistically. Can applications by two different users share a desktop session? A clipboard? It's the exact opposite of what Weasel claims, running apps as two different users is cumbersome.
                    They can share that stuff, but I don't see how it's much of a problem that they can't cooperate.

                    You choose to isolate one of them, so it's to be expected. I mean, if you trust it then don't isolate it?

                    Better than not even having a choice like in Wayland where isolation is forced.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Weasel You seem to be complaining that protection that may be required when you least expect it is being forced upon you. People don't plan to have car accidents and any more than people swing a hammer at a nail expecting it to land on their finger.
                      Perhaps we can borrow the analogy of a condom and being allowed to remove it to be with your wife (our metaphor for two trusted applications). Now imagine that your wife is a nurse and caught something at the hospital earlier that day that is highly contagious. Sleeping with her tonight without a condom will surely pass this infection onto you as well.

                      Any required interaction between well written apps can be through safe tunnels (pun intended) with no loss in end result; it just needs to be done differently than before.

                      "Trusted apps" of the past that turned out to be conduits for infection.
                      Microsoft Word + Excel (macros), Adobe Acrobat Reader, Internet Explorer, Anti Virus update software.....

                      The sad truth is most users cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions for their PC.

                      Software that is thought to be safe one day is the conduit of a 0-day the next...

                      Perhaps this perspective will help you understand that there is an opportunity here for you to see this step as being one in the right direction.. for the greater good (because infected computers often run computer instructions that spread their infection purposefully with malevolent intent). Nobody wants to be that guy who caught something from his wife; that's not something we are likely to brag about.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X