109
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 37 points 5 months ago

Just because it has a CVE number doesn't mean it's exploitable. Of the 800 CVEs, which ones are in the KEV catalogue? What are the attack vectors? What mitigations are available?

[-] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago

The idea that it is somehow possible to determine that for each and every bug is a crazy fantasy by the people who don't like to update to the latest version.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

If I had a dollar for the number of BS CVE's submitted by security hopefuls trying to pad their resumes...

[-] [email protected] 32 points 5 months ago

Great reason to push more code out of the kernel and into user land

[-] [email protected] 29 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)
[-] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago

I dunno, Stallman, it's been 30 years, you got something for us?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/LInux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

I think we should just resurrect Plan 9 instead.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Plan 9 is also monolithic, according to wikipedia. For BSD it depends.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

I mean, you're right but I still want to see a modernized plan 9, I just think it would be neat.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago
[-] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago
[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago
[-] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

It means anyone including microsoft or apple can use the code contribution or take the entire softwarw and make some modifications and sell it proprietary. Any optimisations or features made by community can be proprietarised

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Interesting, but why implement yet another windowing system?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

L4. HURD never panned out, and L4 is where the microkernel research settled: Memory protection, scheduling, IPC in the kernel the rest outside and there's also important insights as to the APIs to do that with. In particular the IPC mechanism is opaque, the kernel doesn't actually read the messages which was the main innovation over Mach.

Literally billions of devices run OKL4, seL4 systems are also in mass production. Think broadband processors, automotive, that kind of stuff.

The kernel being watertight doesn't mean that your system is, though, you generally don't need kernel privileges to exfiltrate any data or generally mess around, root suffices.

If you want to see this happening -- I guess port AMDGPU to an L4?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

seL4 is the world’s only hypervisor with a sound worst-case execution-time (WCET) analysis, and as such the only one that can give you actual real-time guarantees, no matter what others may be claiming. (If someone else tells you they can make such guarantees, ask them to make them in public so Gernot can call out their bullshit.)

That bit on their FAQ is amusing.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

eBPF is looking great.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

So what you are saying is “mach was right”?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Everybody knows it was. Even Linus said a microkernel architecture was better. He just wanted something working “now” for his hobby project, and microkernel research was still ongoing then.

[-] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago

Best way I found it running this command

rm -rf /

Then do a reboot just to be sure.

Good luck compromising my system after that.

FYI This is a joke Don't actually run this command :)

[-] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

sudo apt-get remove systemd (don't actually run this)

[-] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

I ran it and followed a documentation to install Void Linux and now it runs so much smoother!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

It won't work without --no-preserve-root

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

good thing that command won't do anything anymore

[-] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago

Article for the sake of having an article.

[-] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago

Step one: stop listening to anything from Ziff-Davis.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

I mean, this isn't any different for Windows or macos. The difference is the culture around the kernel.

With Linux there are easily orders of magnitude more eyeballs on it than the others combined. And fixes are something anyone with a desire to do so can apply. You don't have to wait for a fix to be packaged and delivered.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

pacman -Syu

Rhetorical question?

[-] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

Security is not a binary variable, but managed in terms of risk. Update your stuff, don't expose it to the open Internet if it doesn't need it, and so on. If it's a server, it should probably have unattended upgrades.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

If it's a server, it should probably have unattended upgrades.

Interesting opinion, I've always heard that unattended upgrades were a terrible option for servers because it might randomly break your system or reboot when an important service is running.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Both my Debian 12 servers run with unattended upgrades. I've never had anything break from the changes in packages, I think. I tend to use docker and on one even lxc containers (proxmox), but the lxc containers also have unattended upgrades running.

Do you just update your stuff manually or do you not update at all? I'm subscribed to the Debian security mailing list, and they frequently find something that means people should upgrade, recently something with the glibc.

Debian especially is focused on being very stable, so updating should never break anything that wasn't broken before. Sometimes docker containers don't like to restart so they refuse, but then I did something stupid.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

There are two schools of thought here. The "never risk anything that could potentially break something" school and the "make stuff robust enough that it will deal with broken states". Usually the former doesn't work so well once something actually breaks.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

Install all the patches immediately.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Crontab dnf update -y and trust that if anything breaks uptime monitoing/ someone will let me know sooner or later.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Don't use cron for that. Use the package managers auto update utility. Plus if you use the proper tools you can set it to security updates only

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago
[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Honestly it is a valid option for critical systems. It is a bad idea to connect water treatment plans to the internet for example

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Some air gaps better than others

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

The penguin pic is so cute

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
109 points (88.1% liked)

Linux

47365 readers
961 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS