ChromeOS uses an older kernel than even Debian Stable and RHEL. The older the kernel, the less the security risks. ChromeOS disables io_uring, which most (all?) other distros leave enabled. io_uring present a large attack surface. ChromeOS uses selinux and other containment technologies to contain the processes most vulnerable to adversarial input (namely, the browser and the media codecs). Fedora and RHEL use selinux, too, but there it is specialized in containing any internet services, e.g., a web server, that might be running on the machine: the browser and the media-file viewers (e.g., the PDF reader) are not constrained by selinux at all on Fedora and RHEL. This works fine for servers (which is Red Hat's bread and butter) but is almost useless for clients (devices used by end users). In contrast, the way selinux is used on ChromeOS is effective at securing a computer being used as an internet client.
It goes on and on. You should read the OP; it is really quite informative.
One thing that bothered me about this story for a long time was the fact that Google is pretty good at security, but Google allows its employees to use Linux on end-user devices. Then I realized that Google cannot trust its employees: with 40,000 software developers, Google must operate so as to be secure even if a few of those developers secretly hate Google and want it to fail or have been paid off or blackmailed into harming Google. The measures Google takes to protect against such employees (i.e., making sure that all code is reviewed by another developer before deployment, and making it so that a reviewer cannot choose which coders he reviews and vice-versa) naturally also protect against Linux running on the devices in front of the employees. (Even then Google is unsatisfied with the security of any of the publicly-available distros with the result that Google maintains its own internal Linux distro.)
It goes on and on. You should read the OP; it is really quite informative.
I'm going to let this pass since I don't want to start a flamewar here but I think it's very rude to imply I didn't read the OP, and I think less of you for it.
So to summarize, you believe ChromeOS is immune to the Kernel's security vulnerabilities outlined in the OP because:
- it uses sandboxing (unrelated to kernel security)
- disabled io_uring
- it uses SELinux (unrelated to kernel security) which other distros do as well but you believe ChromeOS does it more effectively for desktop applications
Windows will: spy on you, serve you advertisements, reboot autonomously, destroying your open work, install software without consent, report your browsing behavior to advertisers, literally steal your email password, upload all your files to one drive without consent, forcibly change your default browser, insert aggressive ads for Edge in front of the Firefox download page, show you clickbait tabloid articles in the taskbar.
Honestly I'm not sure how you can consider any of that secure.
You have this very backwards, CVEs are about Security and not the other way around.
Consider why we care about security in the first place:
- We don't want our private data stolen
- We don't want a malicious program stealing our electricity and computing resources
- We don't want adware injecting advertising into our browser toolbar, homepage, email client, etc
- We want our family to be able to safely use our computers without having to worry about them falling for scams
- We want peace of mind
Unconsented advertising is absolutely a violation of security in the same way a salesmen breaking into your house to sell you things is. Don't miss the forest for the trees here.
Do not forget that the CVE system is fundamentally just a tool for tracking computer security vulnerabilities, a tool that unfortunately incentivises pedantic security researchers to fill it with garbage to pad their resumes, a tool who's authority is worshiped like a god by corporate IT departments despite it's inadequacies, but a tool nonetheless which just happens to be better than it's alternatives.
The fact that deliberate security violations enforced by the vendor are not tracked by the CVE system, is not evidence of Security, but simply a limitation of the system.
Consider why we care about security in the first place:
- We don't want our private data stolen
- We don't want a malicious program stealing our electricity and computing resources
- We don't want adware injecting advertising into our browser toolbar, homepage, email client, etc
- We want our family to be able to safely use our computers without having to worry about them falling for scams
- We want peace of mind
Almost all those points are basically the same thing repeated differently:
We don't want somebody else mess with our computer, but that "somebody else" almost always is 3rd party - so not you (user) and not Microsoft (vendor).
Ads from vendor aren't considered as a security issue (unless very edge cases).
They are annoying, but in the principle they aren't security defect (unless badly implemented)
Android and chromeos are Linux based, so it's very interesting that 2 of your 4 most secure operating systems are linux.
But this is a perfect example of how the premise itself is fundemntally clickbait. The problem of insecurity is unrelated to Linux, but the execution and privilege model of userspace.
Except they're not. They're the most permissive by default, maybe. But they're not the least secure.
If you put an assa abloy on your door, and then elect not to lock it. That doesn't mean assa abloy is the least secure lock.
Windows has a reputation for being insecure because if you try to keep someone out, they can still get in. This article was written on the idea that Linux is insecure, because when you don't try to keep someone out, they can get in.
Not quite, you can secure and lock down Windows too, the problem is that it isn't secure by default. And 90% of Admins don't bother with securing it other than sprinkling anti-virus on top.
Android, ChromeOS and Qubes are secure by default. Though I wouldn't trust a novice user with QubesOS.
Comments
Linux may not be totally secure but it is securest of all the viable options.
Depends on your definition of "secure" of course.
Chromeos and Mac OS are way more secure. Inb4 “chromeos is Linux” yeah but no, that’s just pedantic.
Half the OP is complaints about Linux kernel security. How is ChromeOS, which uses the Linux kernel, immune from these complaints?
ChromeOS uses an older kernel than even Debian Stable and RHEL. The older the kernel, the less the security risks. ChromeOS disables io_uring, which most (all?) other distros leave enabled. io_uring present a large attack surface. ChromeOS uses selinux and other containment technologies to contain the processes most vulnerable to adversarial input (namely, the browser and the media codecs). Fedora and RHEL use selinux, too, but there it is specialized in containing any internet services, e.g., a web server, that might be running on the machine: the browser and the media-file viewers (e.g., the PDF reader) are not constrained by selinux at all on Fedora and RHEL. This works fine for servers (which is Red Hat's bread and butter) but is almost useless for clients (devices used by end users). In contrast, the way selinux is used on ChromeOS is effective at securing a computer being used as an internet client.
It goes on and on. You should read the OP; it is really quite informative.
One thing that bothered me about this story for a long time was the fact that Google is pretty good at security, but Google allows its employees to use Linux on end-user devices. Then I realized that Google cannot trust its employees: with 40,000 software developers, Google must operate so as to be secure even if a few of those developers secretly hate Google and want it to fail or have been paid off or blackmailed into harming Google. The measures Google takes to protect against such employees (i.e., making sure that all code is reviewed by another developer before deployment, and making it so that a reviewer cannot choose which coders he reviews and vice-versa) naturally also protect against Linux running on the devices in front of the employees. (Even then Google is unsatisfied with the security of any of the publicly-available distros with the result that Google maintains its own internal Linux distro.)
I'm going to let this pass since I don't want to start a flamewar here but I think it's very rude to imply I didn't read the OP, and I think less of you for it.
So to summarize, you believe ChromeOS is immune to the Kernel's security vulnerabilities outlined in the OP because:
- it uses sandboxing (unrelated to kernel security) - disabled io_uring - it uses SELinux (unrelated to kernel security) which other distros do as well but you believe ChromeOS does it more effectively for desktop applications
I remain unconvinced.
ChromeOS' root filesystem is read-only with tamper-proof authentication. And notably, there is no way to autostart anything.
So in the worst case where an attacker gains code execution in the kernel, you just reboot the device and are guaranteed to be safe again.
No, Windows, MacOS, iOS, Android and ChromeOS are all much more secure.
Windows will: spy on you, serve you advertisements, reboot autonomously, destroying your open work, install software without consent, report your browsing behavior to advertisers, literally steal your email password, upload all your files to one drive without consent, forcibly change your default browser, insert aggressive ads for Edge in front of the Firefox download page, show you clickbait tabloid articles in the taskbar.
Honestly I'm not sure how you can consider any of that secure.
this, just like many other points is not security, sorry.
Security is about (among other) CVEs, not ads.
bullshit
without consent? did onedrive magically figure out your MS credentials?
what?
You have this very backwards, CVEs are about Security and not the other way around.
Consider why we care about security in the first place:
- We don't want our private data stolen
- We don't want a malicious program stealing our electricity and computing resources
- We don't want adware injecting advertising into our browser toolbar, homepage, email client, etc
- We want our family to be able to safely use our computers without having to worry about them falling for scams
- We want peace of mind
Unconsented advertising is absolutely a violation of security in the same way a salesmen breaking into your house to sell you things is. Don't miss the forest for the trees here.
Do not forget that the CVE system is fundamentally just a tool for tracking computer security vulnerabilities, a tool that unfortunately incentivises pedantic security researchers to fill it with garbage to pad their resumes, a tool who's authority is worshiped like a god by corporate IT departments despite it's inadequacies, but a tool nonetheless which just happens to be better than it's alternatives.
The fact that deliberate security violations enforced by the vendor are not tracked by the CVE system, is not evidence of Security, but simply a limitation of the system.
Almost all those points are basically the same thing repeated differently:
We don't want somebody else mess with our computer, but that "somebody else" almost always is 3rd party - so not you (user) and not Microsoft (vendor).
Ads from vendor aren't considered as a security issue (unless very edge cases).
They are annoying, but in the principle they aren't security defect (unless badly implemented)
Please define security in a way that excludes all possible classes of "third party doing things on your machine without your knowledge or consent"
Probably referring to this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38212453
Check the recent headlines. Windows is pushing user files to one drive and stealing email passwords to proxy your email account on Microsoft servers.
Honestly baffled how you can deny this. Windows rebooting on its own is one of the most defining features.
Bullshit.
There's only scenario where I can imagine Windows rebooting ""on its own""
You've scheduled an update or you're delaying update for long peroid of time?
How so? in the principle ads aren't security issues (unless badly implemented)
I've literally googled: "windows stealing email passwords"
and the very first thing is article from 2016 and the other are about Malware/Scam, so how what article are you talking about?
Android and chromeos are Linux based, so it's very interesting that 2 of your 4 most secure operating systems are linux.
But this is a perfect example of how the premise itself is fundemntally clickbait. The problem of insecurity is unrelated to Linux, but the execution and privilege model of userspace.
I meant that Linux-based systems other than Android, ChromeOS and Qubes are the least secure of the common OS options.
Except they're not. They're the most permissive by default, maybe. But they're not the least secure.
If you put an assa abloy on your door, and then elect not to lock it. That doesn't mean assa abloy is the least secure lock.
Windows has a reputation for being insecure because if you try to keep someone out, they can still get in. This article was written on the idea that Linux is insecure, because when you don't try to keep someone out, they can get in.
Not quite, you can secure and lock down Windows too, the problem is that it isn't secure by default. And 90% of Admins don't bother with securing it other than sprinkling anti-virus on top.
Android, ChromeOS and Qubes are secure by default. Though I wouldn't trust a novice user with QubesOS.
Android and ChromeOS use the Linux kernel, they aren't GNU/Linux, as the termux folks are certainly aware.
For that reason, TFA said Desktop Linux, in order to avoid "pedanticism [sic]".
except chromeos is also desktop linux... unless desktop has a different definition than the one I know?