10
Which Desktop / Window Manager is most secure?
(feddit.de)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
10 points (58.6% liked)
Linux
48366 readers
1594 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
i don't really get what people mean when they say this...
when you get tty you still get no access, you need to log in as always. a DE/wm/any x11 session/a wayland session (even though wayland is more secure probs?) should pretty much always be less secure, as depending on what state it is in, what features it has, or what happens when certsin components crash somehow, you can more easily "hack" your way in that way than via doing a "ctrl+alt+F-key". so i don't get the whole "get tour mind blown" thing there, i have heard it multiple times.
or am i missing something?
Yeah you're missing the point that the mind blown is just ironic.
The entire point here was to demonstrate that the "security" features of these DEs are not implemented by the DE but by the underlying components such as PAM, and you can just ignore the DE until you have the basics fixed.
What's the point in having a super duper secure login screen if I can bypass it by booting from a USB stick for example.
reading your comments, you like to say that someone has "missed the point".
well, my point is, you should not ignore the DE. i mean, you can, if you can bypass the login as is, sure. but from a user perspective, you should not ignore it, because the DE is a potential security risk. e.g. if your screen lock crashes and whatnot.
sure, yes indeed, your DE can be as secure as you want and it doesn't matter if your underlying system is not secure. and yes indeed, with any non-encrypted drive, you can just mount the drives on another system (e.g. boot the computer from a USB drive). that almost goes without saying imo, and of course that's why an encrypted drive is recommended.
the question is, how easy is it to get to the stuff with an encrypted drive when the system is booted and the encrypted drive(s) is (are) mounted? it is not that easy. and there, the quality of your screen lock setup is the biggest risk factor, usually. if you can crash your DE/WM somehow, if it is not setup right with your display manager or something, then you might be able to get into a login (and interactive) shell of that user (maybe because it is the parent process of your WM that you started with
startx).if you "allow" your potential attacker to reboot from a usb stick, then it is obvious that your DE doesn't matter at all pretty much.
Well especially if the previous comment asked "or am I missing something".
Obviously I could be wrong that's why I said I THINK
the "missing something" was with regards to what i said about ctrl+alt+F-something not giving some extra attack point. missing something that would blow my mind. if you say the mind blowing is ironic or whtever then it doesn't matter anyway.