[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/g/ - Technology

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 156 KB, 1344x742, CBE45C4A-A589-4BA0-AB3C-E6D70F602F3E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
71818530 No.71818530 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe] [rbt]

Linux is fundamentally flawed because the old legacy cruft, it uses deprecated, obsolate privilege separation based on users and groups which is a security nightmare.
No linux can whitstand any physical attack without encryption.
Its is a security nightmare, and lets say it frankly: impossible to audit.
It still advertised as „secure“, while it is nothing else just security by obscurity and it actually cannot deliver the promises, as the CPUs have many known and plenty not-yet-known vulnerabilities.
Windows, mac and BSDs also flawed because the same reasons.
Accept the fact that you cannot have secure system from any mainstream provider, even if you can have the sources and compiles it from zero.
What are you do to keep your system secure? What kind of strange OS do you use?
Is there anything what we can do?
Is there any way out, or do we have to force-feed us with false-security forever?
Capitalism is not the best, but thats the best what we have?
Linux is not the best, but thats the best what we have?
When will we solve this flaws or do we have to stay in fundamentally doomed state?
Our OSs doesnt even tries to maintain the consistency of the system files, and the *nix like filesystems are disgusting.

>> No.71818569

Just because you personally cannot afford to audit it, does not mean it can't be audited.

>> No.71818816

Just because you don't know anything about Linux's code doesn't mean anything you said is true.

>> No.71818840

really terrible and pointless post.

>> No.71818885

>Linux is fundamentally flawed because the old legacy cruft
>Windows, mac and BSDs also flawed because the same reasons.
OP is right, __everything__ is shit. especially this thread.

>> No.71819312

Have sou tried?

>> No.71819348

But you know it well so we just have to trust you and we are safe because you says so, did i get you right, or was there some bullshit in your post what i misunderstood?

>> No.71819431

My thread is shit, dont think it makes me happy to make this threads with my broken language skills. It would be better if more users would question the promises what the different OSs says.
Otherwise “emulating” mainframes is cool but not productive, and Linux does that.
So are you telling i am full bullshit without any reasoning? If you want to argue lets hear the facts, otherwise you are just a fanboi and shiller.

>> No.71819499

Switch over to OpenBSD is you are concerned about security issues. I'm thinkong about doing the same but linux is much more convenient.

>> No.71819514

Hey, why try to force capitalism here, faggot? You forcing me to buy your shitty Windows licence or your overpriced Apple that underperforms because GABITALISM =DDDDD

Why don't you go back to Microsoft and Apple and force them to gitgud instead?

>> No.71819584

this was almost good but instead it became linux bad bait

>> No.71819592

But thats follows the traditional unixy privilege separation, so flawed too.

>> No.71819600

>No linux can whitstand any physical attack without encryption.
No OS can. That's not a design flaw either. I see no point in reading past that "argument".

>> No.71819617

I dont force you, every mainstream OS is flawed, you have choices, but you cant have security.

>> No.71819687

It is not an axiom, we can create OS to handle this kind of attack, we are just lazy and this was never really researched. You dont have any idea what everything would be posdible with a non-doomed ecosystem.
Butyeah, Linux works for you, we are happy about it, but your use-case isbt representative, and you know it well, still shills for shit. Who pays you?

>> No.71819736

If OP lived in medieval times he'd have issues with messages written on paper, which are vunerable to physical breaking of the seal and opening the paper to read it's contents.
>muh encryption
yeah sure, write a fucking encrypted letter to a duke living 60 miles away whom you've never spoken to, seen in person and never had a chance to establish any kind of encryption method.

>> No.71819834

You should be an hero, because you understand unironically/literally nothing what i snd ehat you wrote, you just shilling, or are you in denial state?

>> No.71819869

>medieval times posting
Did you just get done watching GoT?

>> No.71820017

Yes, I can. FOSS is transparent, there's certainty with FOSS but closed source garbage like Windows is like religion, you have to have faith in Microsoft and trust them to do the right thing. We all know Microsoft's reputation.

>> No.71820030

If you lived in classical antiquity times, and you tried to send an encrypted piece of geometric art on flaxened paper to your lawagetas a person that you've never hath met face with, and never had previous encounter to establish any kind of encryption method for flaxened paper messages in the first place.

>> No.71820053

If you have physical acces to an unencrypted hard drive, what could the OS possibly do? You're just throwing around bullshit hoping to make it stick.

>> No.71820101

You got false-security, nothing else. Dont lie to yourself.

>> No.71820125

I don't watch tv shows. Why would you even assume utilizing a knowledge of a fucking mailing in medieval times requires touch with an edgy lotr fanfic

>you are stupid HA
The guy literally complains that you can't have 100% super mumbo jumbo secretti spaghetti build because they're all flawed. Well guess what motherfucker; it's just autistic rambling.
95% of people won't ever have to care about their data safety unless they keep their fucking password on a piece of paper under the keyboard. 95% of the rest 5% won't need anything more than VPN and encrypted hdd.
Time goes on, faggots like OP change nothing with their autistic ramblings. Just like time went few centuries ago, when supposed OP alikes changed nothing with their autistic ramblings about issues of postal privacy.
Fuck you.

>> No.71820149

I think you mean the public key based encryption, right?
If so, you didnt understand how computers working so you dont understand the flaws, you have no idea whats wrong, thus you are a normie, go back to your gaynes.

>> No.71820189
File: 5 KB, 903x903, gnu_linux.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>Security can never be 100% perfect. What do?

Be secure and not be a retard, like yourself?

>> No.71820198

You dont understand shit.
Tell me, how would you notice that somebody messed with your drives while you was not home?
What kind of self-consisteny check fors your OS provides, how can be sure nobody messed with it?
You ate a fucking normie, mate.

>> No.71820206

>I think you mean the public key based encryption, right?
No. Reread my post, you ass of all the jacks.

>> No.71820224

So the only solution is to use security developed inthe fucking 60’s? Are you telling this? Oh, man!

>> No.71820243

If that's the conclusion you're drawing from this then you clearly don't deserve any better.

>> No.71820248

You can't. It's just not possible. If the entire OS state is saved on the drive, ALL of it can be manipulated and there is NO way to check for it other than offsite hashes or shit like that. It's possible to make it arbitrarily complicated but I see no point there. If there's physical access there could also be keyloggers, hidden cameras, etc. There really is no point.

Encrypt the disk or shut up.

>> No.71820258

You're projecting. FOSS is transparent but you have to believe Microsoft to do the right thing like Christians believed they were doing the right thing in the dark ages. Microsoft can lie to you and you wouldn't know.

>> No.71820692

>assumes someone messed with the drive
>trusts self-consistency check running from the same drive
check your own self-consistency, mate

>> No.71820717

The difference between annoying people and people who get shit done is people who get shit done do something after they find a flaw, while annoying people just whine. Guess what group you belong at OP.

>> No.71820743
File: 113 KB, 1319x1054, duker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

we ought to just throw security and multiuser out the window. if people get malware its their faults. and multiuser, well, no one cares about that shit

>> No.71820748

>just a fanboi and shiller
Lel, do you know what those even mean? I didn't reference anything to shill/fanboy. What else is there to say on the topic? You seem to live in a delusional world where the "perfect" OS exists without any compromises or flaws. Make your own OS or settle on the one you find the least shitty. Also, your OP is just your opinion in the form of angsty rhetorical questions. There's not much to discuss.

>> No.71820764

im talking memory protection, rings, signed code. just throw that shit in the garbage ASAP and lets start making real computers and software again please

>> No.71820814

install Oberon

>> No.71820996


>> No.71821043
File: 32 KB, 497x576, Nobody_will_notice.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.71822360

>all software writers are Microsoft
You absolute stupid fucking bitch.

>> No.71822424

Anyone who develops closed source software is indeed striving to become another Microsoft.

>> No.71824186

core system files are legacy and obsolete yet reverse software compataibility is non-existent.

>> No.71824538

If Linux was actually insecure, then 90%+ of the world wouldn't sue it for servers. If you're so confident in it being insecure, why don't you break into a fortune 500 company's servers and spill all their secrets on 4chan? What's that? You can't because their Linux systems are too secure? Thought so.

>> No.71825256

You can use ACL. Look us setfacl.
That's just a nightmare for all the retard programs that don't get them. Unarchiving a tar.gz for a deployment is always fun, because it always tries to chown back to the users in the .tar, which will fail unless you're root.

>> No.71825282

>not productive
>used in every server
This doesn't add up

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.