8 ms·

Just my two cents about the security aspect. All Linux binaries are compiled with PIE nowadays. You can run `checksec` on any binaries on Ubuntu, and it will h

Just my two cents about the security aspect. All Linux binaries are compiled with PIE nowadays. You can run `checksec` on any binaries on Ubuntu, and it will have those properties. (You can install checksec with `pip install pwntools`). On the other hand, GLIBC has, to my knowledge, the most hardened heap implementation out there. And there are more mitigations for double-free and other heap exploits on GLIBC. So in that regard, Alpine is less secure by using musl. Having a small, understandable system is a real advantage when it comes to security.

crest 2y ago
> On the other hand, GLIBC has, to my knowledge, the most hardened heap implementation out there. And there are more mitigations for double-free and other heap exploits on GLIBC. Check the OpenBSD libc...
blueflow 2y ago
> Having a small, understandable system is a real advantage when it comes to security. How did that look like in your mind that it is a point for (and not against) glibc?
- balder1991 2y ago
  That got me confused too.
  - segfaultbuserr 2y ago
    It was pretty clear to me that the comment was a description of the respective characteristics of glibc and musl in terms of security, while avoiding any conclusion: glibc has heap hardening, which is good for security, but a complex codebase, which is bad for security. Meanwhile, musl is small and understandable, which is good for security, but with a naive codebase that lacks hardening, which is bad for security. Which is better is intentionally left to the reader to avoid flamewars.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      That's a charitable reading but it doesn't track with what they actually said. The first paragraph says that all modern Linux binaries are compiled with PIE, so Alpine has no advantage there. The second paragraph says that glibc is more secure than musl heap-wise. The third paragraph is the conclusion, which is that Alpine is less secure because it uses musl. A sentence thrown on to the end of the conclusion should normally be read as reemphasizing the reasons for the conclusion unless it starts with a word like "though" or "however".
      - Faelian2 2y ago
        Yeah, sorry guys. I did write too fast. The last sentence should be : So in that regard, Alpine is less secure by using musl. However, having a small and understandable system is a real advantage when it comes to security.
      - qwertygerty 2y ago
        wow. what a thread.
        Brian_K_White 2y ago
        Upvoted even though I'm guilty. But then again so are you. ;)
        flawsofar 2y ago
        nerds have the best arguments
      - Brian_K_White 2y ago
        If you're smart enough to construct this analysis and critique, then you're smart enough to have reached the same conclusion the parent and I did. I'm not charitable, it's just what made sense, like mentally fixing a typo instead of acting like you don't know, and can't figure out from context what someone meant just because they flubbed a letter or a word or something.
  - aodonnell2536 2y ago
    A line break in between the two sentences of the last paragraph may have made the commenter’s point clearer. It seems to be they were only comparing the relatives benefits/drawbacks of glibc and musl, but with the way it is written the pro-musl comment feels out of place.
LinuxBender 2y ago
I run checksec on everything all the time and on all my Alpine nodes all the processes come back like this not pasting the full output for brevity... I have never see anything built by Alpine missing these flags. COMMAND PID RELRO STACK CANARY NX/PaX PIE init 1 Full RELRO Canary found NX enabled PIE enabled [snip...] crond 422838 Full RELRO Canary found NX enabled PIE enabled
0xbadcafebee 2y ago
Re: Linux security, if someone can run any code at all on your system, you're screwed. Linux is swiss cheese. The only reason it isn't just as overrun with malware as Windows is nobody uses Linux for a desktop, so malware authors don't really try. (honestly I'd say modern Windows and MacOS both have a superior security architecture)
- nolist_policy 2y ago
  OTOH ChromeOS, one of the more secure operating system s (behind QubesOS, on par with Android and iOS) is GNU/Linux. But in normal Linux land things are moving too: Flatpack, Wayland, immutable rootfs, systemd service sandboxing, ... Also browsers on GNU/Linux are generally well sandboxed, the interfaces are there.
  - DEADMINCE 2y ago
    > ChromeOS, one of the more secure operating system s (behind QubesOS, on par with Android and iOS) I don't know what features ChromeOS has over Linux but I wouldn't considered Android or iOS particularly secure, and Qubes isn't either directly, it's just a tool that can help in some cases.
    - ricktdotorg 2y ago
      one nice thing about ChromeOS is that the system partition is literally read-only[1]. a staging partition is used to install updates. [1] https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/filesystem-autoupdate/ https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/...
      - pram 2y ago
        So is iOS/MacOS
  - 0xbadcafebee 2y ago
    Every browser on every platform gets 0days all the time, sandboxes don't stop them. ChromeOS is not one of the most secure OSes, it's not even the most secure Android OS. The Linux kernel's security design is crap. Doesn't matter what you run underneath it. It gets owned all the time, and it will stay that way.

crest 2y ago

> On the other hand, GLIBC has, to my knowledge, the most hardened heap implementation out there. And there are more mitigations for double-free and other heap exploits on GLIBC. Check the OpenBSD libc...

blueflow 2y ago

> Having a small, understandable system is a real advantage when it comes to security. How did that look like in your mind that it is a point for (and not against) glibc?

balder1991 2y ago
That got me confused too.
- segfaultbuserr 2y ago
  It was pretty clear to me that the comment was a description of the respective characteristics of glibc and musl in terms of security, while avoiding any conclusion: glibc has heap hardening, which is good for security, but a complex codebase, which is bad for security. Meanwhile, musl is small and understandable, which is good for security, but with a naive codebase that lacks hardening, which is bad for security. Which is better is intentionally left to the reader to avoid flamewars.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    That's a charitable reading but it doesn't track with what they actually said. The first paragraph says that all modern Linux binaries are compiled with PIE, so Alpine has no advantage there. The second paragraph says that glibc is more secure than musl heap-wise. The third paragraph is the conclusion, which is that Alpine is less secure because it uses musl. A sentence thrown on to the end of the conclusion should normally be read as reemphasizing the reasons for the conclusion unless it starts with a word like "though" or "however".
    - Faelian2 2y ago
      Yeah, sorry guys. I did write too fast. The last sentence should be : So in that regard, Alpine is less secure by using musl. However, having a small and understandable system is a real advantage when it comes to security.
    - qwertygerty 2y ago
      wow. what a thread.
      - Brian_K_White 2y ago
        Upvoted even though I'm guilty. But then again so are you. ;)
      - flawsofar 2y ago
        nerds have the best arguments
    - Brian_K_White 2y ago
      If you're smart enough to construct this analysis and critique, then you're smart enough to have reached the same conclusion the parent and I did. I'm not charitable, it's just what made sense, like mentally fixing a typo instead of acting like you don't know, and can't figure out from context what someone meant just because they flubbed a letter or a word or something.
- aodonnell2536 2y ago
  A line break in between the two sentences of the last paragraph may have made the commenter’s point clearer. It seems to be they were only comparing the relatives benefits/drawbacks of glibc and musl, but with the way it is written the pro-musl comment feels out of place.

LinuxBender 2y ago

I run checksec on everything all the time and on all my Alpine nodes all the processes come back like this not pasting the full output for brevity... I have never see anything built by Alpine missing these flags. COMMAND PID RELRO STACK CANARY NX/PaX PIE init 1 Full RELRO Canary found NX enabled PIE enabled [snip...] crond 422838 Full RELRO Canary found NX enabled PIE enabled

0xbadcafebee 2y ago

Re: Linux security, if someone can run any code at all on your system, you're screwed. Linux is swiss cheese. The only reason it isn't just as overrun with malware as Windows is nobody uses Linux for a desktop, so malware authors don't really try. (honestly I'd say modern Windows and MacOS both have a superior security architecture)

nolist_policy 2y ago
OTOH ChromeOS, one of the more secure operating system s (behind QubesOS, on par with Android and iOS) is GNU/Linux. But in normal Linux land things are moving too: Flatpack, Wayland, immutable rootfs, systemd service sandboxing, ... Also browsers on GNU/Linux are generally well sandboxed, the interfaces are there.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  > ChromeOS, one of the more secure operating system s (behind QubesOS, on par with Android and iOS) I don't know what features ChromeOS has over Linux but I wouldn't considered Android or iOS particularly secure, and Qubes isn't either directly, it's just a tool that can help in some cases.
  - ricktdotorg 2y ago
    one nice thing about ChromeOS is that the system partition is literally read-only[1]. a staging partition is used to install updates. [1] https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/filesystem-autoupdate/ https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/...
    - pram 2y ago
      So is iOS/MacOS
- 0xbadcafebee 2y ago
  Every browser on every platform gets 0days all the time, sandboxes don't stop them. ChromeOS is not one of the most secure OSes, it's not even the most secure Android OS. The Linux kernel's security design is crap. Doesn't matter what you run underneath it. It gets owned all the time, and it will stay that way.