Basically, you want to improve the security of Linux, by reducing the attack surface and adding authentication wherever possible? There’s a bunch of practices involved - using a custom hardened kernel focused on security, as well as enabling strong firewall config and disk encryption. I’ve never tried hardening before, so I don’t know if I’m missing anything.
Honestly, you could use OpenBSD here, as it comes hardened out of the box, and it seems be the preferred choice for a security-first computing. But if platform is a constraint, then you may try your luck with linux-hardened.
They developed new system calls (pledge and unveil) which restrict they system calls and file access of programs (here’s a good writeup by Andreas Kling after he added support in SerenityOS: https://awesomekling.github.io/pledge-and-unveil-in-SerenityOS/). As an example, the Firefox port for OpenBSD uses them to heavily restrict what random websites can do or get from your system.
Just one example since you’ve somehow yet to see any.
+1, but OpenBSD can enforce security (Linux have landlock, *san, ACL, MAC but cannot enforce them, while OpenBSD doesn’t but can enforce pledge and unveil and even for some ports like chromium and firefox)
I heard of Chimera multiple times now, but everytime I look into it it doesn’t seem to be more interesting and useful than say Alpine.
Do you have any write-ups about the security advantages of Chimera Linux?
I mean Chimera is using FreeBSD userland, and they expressed why GNU coreutils used by most distro have “problem”. Since we are talking about BSD. (OpenBSD’s userland is less in feature and it is cleaner)
(so that’s bring an advantage in security lol)
While coreutils may seem lightweight enough to not cause any issues already, there are some specific reasons the system uses a BSD-derived userland. The primary one is probably that the code of the BSD versions is overall much cleaner and easier to read. There are no cursed components such as gnulib, the codebase is leaner, and more aligned with the project’s goals.
Did you read it? The author is clearly biased against OpenBSD.
As an example, he dedicates quite a lot to talk about “ROP gadgets removal” (which is an ineffective mitigation employed by OpenBSD), however he also states:
Anyway, removing ROP gadgets the way OpenBSD is doing it doesn’t add a large amount of complexity, doesn’t harm performances nor debuggability, so why not, but it doesn’t make exploitation significantly harder, at all.
When you consider the fact that some mitigations which were considered overkill were proven significant with time (for example, OpenBSD was completely unaffected by Spectre v1 and similar exploits since they disabled hyperthreading), statements like these make it clear to me that the author is biased.
Edit: This is not to say the website is deceptive, it’s just that it doesn’t provide a good analysis or comparison of the security of different systems IMO.
Basically, you want to improve the security of Linux, by reducing the attack surface and adding authentication wherever possible? There’s a bunch of practices involved - using a custom hardened kernel focused on security, as well as enabling strong firewall config and disk encryption. I’ve never tried hardening before, so I don’t know if I’m missing anything.
Honestly, you could use OpenBSD here, as it comes hardened out of the box, and it seems be the preferred choice for a security-first computing. But if platform is a constraint, then you may try your luck with
linux-hardened.I wouldn’t recommend OpenBSD as it is fairly obscure compared to Linux. I’ve yet to see a real world example of how it is somehow better
They developed new system calls (pledge and unveil) which restrict they system calls and file access of programs (here’s a good writeup by Andreas Kling after he added support in SerenityOS: https://awesomekling.github.io/pledge-and-unveil-in-SerenityOS/). As an example, the Firefox port for OpenBSD uses them to heavily restrict what random websites can do or get from your system.
Just one example since you’ve somehow yet to see any.
https://isopenbsdsecu.re/
I don’t think much changed since then, but would love to be proven wrong.
Forgot to link a comment on that website: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=158908598913596&w=2
+1, but OpenBSD can enforce security (Linux have landlock, *san, ACL, MAC but cannot enforce them, while OpenBSD doesn’t but can enforce pledge and unveil and even for some ports like chromium and firefox)
https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/
But see Chimera Linux.
I heard of Chimera multiple times now, but everytime I look into it it doesn’t seem to be more interesting and useful than say Alpine.
Do you have any write-ups about the security advantages of Chimera Linux?
I mean Chimera is using FreeBSD userland, and they expressed why GNU coreutils used by most distro have “problem”. Since we are talking about BSD. (OpenBSD’s userland is less in feature and it is cleaner)
(so that’s bring an advantage in security lol)
Did you read it? The author is clearly biased against OpenBSD.
As an example, he dedicates quite a lot to talk about “ROP gadgets removal” (which is an ineffective mitigation employed by OpenBSD), however he also states:
When you consider the fact that some mitigations which were considered overkill were proven significant with time (for example, OpenBSD was completely unaffected by Spectre v1 and similar exploits since they disabled hyperthreading), statements like these make it clear to me that the author is biased.
Edit: This is not to say the website is deceptive, it’s just that it doesn’t provide a good analysis or comparison of the security of different systems IMO.