Security in Puppy Linux: running as Root

For discussions about security.
Message
Author
HiDeHo
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed 16 Mar 2011, 09:57

Security in Puppy Linux: running as Root

#1 Post by HiDeHo »

Hi just wanting to start a discussion on this

Puppy runs as root by default this could leave you vulnerable to being hacked or getting viruses, so does pose some risks.
  1. some users setup there puppy os with all settings and accounts setup. then they remaster(make an iso) of this and burn it on cd. they run from cd in ram and don't use a save file or they use a re-writable (rw) cd and have a small save file on the cd/dvd. this is pretty secure. viruses that are designed to run on a hdd cant as there is none.
  2. if you run your puppy os on a hdd or flashdrive full or frugalett the hdd or save file has a risk of getting a virrus. (even though linux generally is safe from viruses and hacking both still can happen.
  3. run as spot user (runs apps without being root) or fido (fido is user account setup like any normal operating system). both run as a non root. also you can just run the apps that access the internet in spot
  4. puppy also has a great firewall and there was also a system wide adblocker app made
what are your thoughts, experiences, ideas about security in puppy. feel free to share them

I have written this post quickly to get the ball rolling and will add relevant links when i have time or if anyone provides them below.

User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

#2 Post by Lobster »

:)

Your router probably has a firewall
You don't need GROWL security, I wrote the program but never bother with it. I may eventually port it to Puppi on the Raspberry Pi
GROWL is somewhere here and built into Puppy Slacko 5.3.3
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/security

If you want to worry about security
then first know that my ISP recently censored
a web site (the Pirate Bay) as no longer accessible according to British
'Law'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/20 ... rgin-media

Good thing the Law is protecting the rights of Lobbyists [ain't it always the case] - no relative incidentally
I may have to join the Pirate Party
http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/

Google Mail and other cloud services are being data mined etc.
You can always trust your bank manager with your root password I suppose . . . or maybe not . . . :?

Thanks for starting the debate. :)
I think I may go to the local police station and hand myself in for using Linux without due patent payment to Microsoft. :D
http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructur ... 0139NWMSLL

The question is who is after you
and have they already pwned you?
Who said 'Long Live FUD'?

Puppy is a state of penguin
Security is a state of Mind
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#3 Post by nooby »

HiDeHo wrote

"run as spot user (runs apps without being root)
or as fido (fido is user account setup like any normal operating system).

both run as a non root. also you can just run the apps
that access the internet in spot"

Thanks for taking up this subject. Are you good at using spot and fido?
I fail to get how it works. Okay no surprise because I am a confused user.

1.) Can you describe how you do it? Fido or Spot which is best? Pro et Cons for them?

2.) Suppose you have activated Fido at shutdown? Are you on Lupu
Slacko or Wary or what? So you are using Firefox and posting here in forum.

And there is a .sfs file you want to save from the forum.
How does that work in Spot or Fido? does it end up only
within Spot or Fido and you later have to move it to root HD?

3.) Suppose you want to download an iso from DW and you browse to that
link and click on it. How do you save to a linux-iso directory on the root
HD using your Fido or your Spot user?

4.) I know nothing but I get the gut feeling that Spot or Fido makes you
safer in that as a restricted user the Virus or Malware or Trojan can only
reach the home of Spot or Fido and have to log off and log in as root
for to save itself to the HD?

But as soon as you yourself does log into Root again for to move the
downloaded files .sfs and .iso files to root HD then the Virus or Malware
or Trojan also can move itself to root HD and then there where no safe
usage of Spot or Fido? The only way to make it safe is to reboot? before
using root again??? I may be wrong explain please!

So it would only work if you shutdown completely and then reboot into root?
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

User avatar
greengeek
Posts: 5789
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2010, 09:34
Location: Republic of Novo Zelande

#4 Post by greengeek »

It doesn't really matter if you are using Microsoft, Apple, Android or Linux. The internet (and router code) was developed by the U.S military. Everything you enter into your (internet connected) computer is visible to other people.
http://www.naturalnews.com/036147_Flame ... orism.html

nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#5 Post by nooby »

Is it not typical that this few people share their views?
I feel disappointed. Was it my post that caused others
to decide to not contribute? Should I edit my posts
and write wrong thread and have no comment at all?
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

User avatar
puppy_apprentice
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue 07 Feb 2012, 20:32

#6 Post by puppy_apprentice »


nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#7 Post by nooby »

Nope that is not a good place to look.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 743#427743
I made a post in that thread and nothing useful came out of it
on the level I need to know.

Then you have this long thread. Fixing Fido.. by 01micko
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=71358
one of Puppy's best developer and that thread has not solved it either.

AFAIK not developed well enough to have an official status on how to set up things.

But back to the topic of this thread.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

User avatar
tallboy
Posts: 1760
Joined: Tue 21 Sep 2010, 21:56
Location: Drøbak, Norway

#8 Post by tallboy »

I agree with nooby, that this is an interesting subject. I think that one of the reasons that few people take part in this discussion, is that the concept of 'security' is misused every day. We are regularly being bombarded with reports of virus attacks, made by hoardes of bandits having nothing else to do than attacking domains and causing havoc. The constantly evolving browsers and other internet based applications, with all their new smart fatures, makes it difficult to grasp the basic problems; they drown in all the other hype over this and that security hole!

I think that a listing, or an overview, of the elements having a basic need for protection when using a network, made by one of you experts on the subject, is necessary to publish here, before any useful discussion can progress. Matters regarding running as root, and possibly other puppy related issues, are of course of special interest. It would also be interesting to know if the focus of attention regarding security, has moved over the last years, as a consequence of the technological advances.

I, for my part, know far too little about network issues to make any valuable contribution in the matter.

My views in the debate on the /root vs /home/user/ issue:
  • Puppylinux is a small, but very powerful, single user distribution, running as root is the only way to do it.
  • When running from a live CD/DVD, as I always do, there is no other way to access a HD or a memory stick, than as root. An alternative would be to use the same user name as owner of the devices, but then, what is the point of a puppy if it isn't portable?
  • When that is said, I also have to mention the number of times I have uploaded files to my /home-directory at the university, and forgot to change the permissions, making my own files inccessible from an on-site pc, where safety issues prevent me from booting my dpup...
  • Puppylinux is small because it is intended for a single-user, anyone can carry it on a CD/DVD or a USB stick, it 'works right out of the box', with a minimum of setup. I see no need for puppylinux as a multi-user distribution whatsoever!
  • I really think that people who need a multi-user puppy, should maybe look for another distribution? Why complicate life by adding more code to a puppy?
  • Although I am the only one accessing my machines, my multi-GB Debian on HDs is run as multi-user. Very sensible, not only because of all the hazzle of installing such a massive distribution, but to avoid having several users spending their remaining days with configuring and setting up, potentially thousands of applications.
  • I feel safe! I don't have a home page in my dpup's browser, I usually turn on privacy mode when I use it, my internet provider has firewalls, they give me a new IP every time I log on, I have a firewall, I run from RAM, no savefile on HD, but I can access all devices plugged in, if needed.
  • I don't have the need for communicating to god knows who, through our new 'social media', all kind of private information that might be useful for some attack on my privacy.
  • To feel even more safe, there are always the applications that hide your IP, let you browse from an anonymous 'safe' account, through TOR if you want that, and probably lots of other safe ways to access the internet. I don't use them, and I don't know anything about them. (Yet.)
  • Chroot, anyone?
tallboy

Bruce B

#9 Post by Bruce B »

nooby wrote:Is it not typical that this few people share their views?
I feel disappointed. Was it my post that caused others
to decide to not contribute? Should I edit my posts
and write wrong thread and have no comment at all?
I was going to reply to you regarding how a restricted user operates compared to root user.

I just didn't know quite how to explain it. Here is a starter:

Linux is modeled after an extremely expensive operating system Unix.

The "floor plans" for Unix was designed as a multiple user OS. I also mean multiple users at the same time.

Two important design considerations were protecting the computer from the users and protecting the users from each other.

Diverging a bit. It is my opinion that security should be in the foundation of an OS rather than as bolt on software such as Microsoft does.

Specifically, Microsoft marketed DOS with hardly a thought for security or even connectively. Then DOS evolved into a GUI OS, but the security holes had to be discovered and bolted on because security was not in the foundation.

Unix always had a reputation of being fairly secure while Windows earned a reputation of being a malware magnet or something of the sort.

Now, if you fairly well understand directory trees and files, the next thing to understand is file permissions. I checked the Internet before posting to you to see if there are good Linux file permission tutorials available and there are. For this reason I won't try and teach file permissions to you. But they must be understood to understand the restricted user and root user differences

Bruce

~

User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

#10 Post by Lobster »

Fatdog 600 beta1 has non root capability. Use multiuser.
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#11 Post by nooby »

Thanks Bruce.

I have tried to get such since about 2006 or 2007
and most likely I am not clever enough to get those things.

Lobster, If Fatdog really is multi user that would be a sensation. Apart from the old one based on 421?
none have accomplished this.

Is Fatdog then a variation or "fatter" version of 421
or a totally new attempt based on Lupu?

(Edit after relearning username. Pizzasgood. I referred to you there Sorry forgot name.)

I mean I read here for hours every day how can I have missed
that it is multi user? Have they kept it secret :)

My naive guess is that they have a single user with spot and fido more elaborated? If it is based on Woof then it is still a single user OS.

Iguleder has made a multiuser but that is not based on woof or a puppy.
Ah they announce it this week.
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=79001
* experimental multi-user (some applications are still broken; some pet packages does not support non-root)


So maybe they have or maybe it is like I guess that they have tried to fix the single user but that it is not a standard mulituser linux

But I am only a naive noob

Hope my bad or poor English don't get misunderstood

I love if they really have accomplished it but would that still be puppy.

It would be a standard Linux that is almost compatible
using many pets but still failing on some. Interesting indeed

Thanks for telling about it indeed.
Last edited by nooby on Sat 16 Jun 2012, 06:14, edited 1 time in total.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

jamesbond
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007, 05:02
Location: The Blue Marble

#12 Post by jamesbond »

nooby wrote:Lobster, If Fatdog really is multi user that would be a sensation. Apart from the old one based on 421?
none have accomplished this.
Not really. Grafpup 2 was multi-user (fork of puppy 1.x), Pizzasgood made multi-user from puppu 421.
Is Fatdog then a variation or "fatter" version of 421
or a totally new attempt based on Lupu?
That's how Fatdog started, a "fatter" version of puppy 4.1. Today, Fatdog is compiled from scratch from T2 (just like Racy/Wary) - it is not based on anything.
I mean I read here for hours every day how can I have missed
that it is multi user? Have they kept it secret :)
Yes :) It is multi-user since alpha2 but it wasn't release-quality yet, so we didn't announce it. Beta1 multiuser should be quite usable.
My naive guess is that they have a single user with spot and fido more elaborated?
No. 600 beta1 is true multiuser, you can add/remove as many users as you want; you can run the desktop as any user; you can switch between root and non-root users anytime.
If it is based on Woof then it is still a single user OS.
It is not based on Woof, though now and then ideas from Woof are adapted for Fatdog.
So maybe they have or maybe it is like I guess that they have tried to fix the single user but that it is not a standard mulituser linux
That depends on what you mean as "standard" :)
I love if they really have accomplished it but would that still be puppy.
Fatdog is still "puppy" at heart :P

cheers!
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]

nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#13 Post by nooby »

jamesbond wrote:
nooby wrote:Lobster, If Fatdog really is multi user that would be a sensation. Apart from the old one based on 421?
none have accomplished this.
Not really. ..., Pizzasgood made multi-user from puppu 421.
Is Fatdog then a variation or "fatter" version of 421
or a totally new attempt based on Lupu?
That's how Fatdog started, a "fatter" version of puppy 4.1. Today, Fatdog is compiled from scratch from T2 (just like Racy/Wary) - it is not based on anything.
...
Yes My apology to Pizzasgood. I knew your handle back in 2011 and
have referred to your version as Puppy412 or Puppy421 many times.

Then my poor memory lost your username but it where you I did refer to
above but knew not how to make it a proper reference there for the cryptic
421 mentioned.

Cool that it is a true multiuser that can still use puppy pets although
some still needs to be tweaked.

What I also like is that it allow us who are multi user challenged to start
being root and add the security later when we finally learn about permissions for multiuser.

What I didn't like where that SeaMonkey did not accept html pages on my internal HD.

Haha now I know that SeaMonkey run as user Spot and that it can not
open files on the HD. So the easy way out is to move a copy of that
html file to Spot directory and open it there instead.

And SeaMonkey can save files to the internal HD so how does that make it safer? I did not have to first save it in downloads at Spot and then move it.
If I can save a file to the internal HD so can any trojan or virus through SM?

Still good that it is true multi-user though.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

Bruce B

#14 Post by Bruce B »

Hi nooby,

There are some errors in your ideas in the post above this one.

You have to spend some time learning file permissions and ownership in order to understand how it all fits together.

Bruce

~

gcmartin

Moving from LH64 thread to here

#15 Post by gcmartin »

In the LH64 thread, the discussion seemingly is addressing what has been offered in this thread. This is a simple insight to what is discussed.

My History
In 1985, I had an interesting report come across my desk. It was an alert to something that had NOT been present in my industry, heretofore...."Viruses" in DOS. This was simply a theoretical supposition, but, it appeared that a government/business/persons could infect a machine from afar for its own specific purpose which differs from the machine owner.

Since then, a whole industry has been created that contributes to an economy's GNP that has arisen.

Today
Some company execs do not know the difference between viruses, malware, or security, thus, the IT staff and industry experts continue to misrepresent issues in this area of discussion.

Over the past 25 years, there have been many an expert that addressed viruses, malware, real and potential. I say "potential" because this usually arises from a gathering of software engineers who were brought together to "crack" a subsystem or a system. Most often times, when that is done, over 98% if the findings are "a first" which has NEVER been seen (0R exploited) before and over 98% of those have never, ever, been attempted at exploitation in the real world.

The security industry is awash with many, many methodologies that are implemented all of which are done by some person/manager/team whose job it has been to manage-consult a security approach to be used by a company they work for.

That being said, I have worked with so many companies for which there are NO standard approaches, nor implementation, nor methods of protections that addresses all situations.

I have only my own implementation that I work with which, in and of itself, is ONLY designed to address the most likely of situations. This is based upon my experiences, the OSes I use, as well as my current usage practices.

I will say, though, there is a reason that the industry exists in the fashion that it does. The OSes, all have design points. And, every OS has an approach which makes it vulnerable to an exploit.

In a community, like this Puppy Forum, we should concentrate on any OS tools that exist, to assist us in managing important data which resides on our system(s). That management is not just protecting, but providing generational copies to assist our recovery should we have an issue where recreation and recovery is necessary.

None of us, no matter how smart we think we are, can provide a implementation that will cover EVERY POSSIBLE METHOD OF DATA LOSS that is or would be possible.

The OS designers (all of them), do provide and address OS protections in ways that make sense. Where we can help is to understand what they provide and determine it that is sufficient to meet our needs. Then we can add additional tools as we see fit to assist the system's ability to keep our data safe. As well we can contact vendors through various means to offer insights that will be useful in data/subsystem/system protections.

Remembering, that this "security/malware-protection/virus-protection" will continue (for the foreseeable future) to be an individual selection and practice. This applies in the home, the SMB, the SME, or the corporate entity.

Hope this clarifies security/malware/viruses. ("I know... it doesn't!")

Here to help

nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#16 Post by nooby »

Bruce B wrote:Hi nooby,

There are some errors in your ideas in the post above this one.

You have to spend some time learning file permissions and ownership in order to understand how it all fits together.

Bruce

~
Bruce you are 100% correct but the sad new is
that I fail to read and to grasp and to remember such.
Too steep learning too much to remember does not have that brain.

I am an aimlessly spinning head up in the blue sky of fantasy. Sad indeed.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

User avatar
greengeek
Posts: 5789
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2010, 09:34
Location: Republic of Novo Zelande

#17 Post by greengeek »

nooby wrote:I am an aimlessly spinning head up in the blue sky of fantasy. Sad indeed.
Ah - sounds like too much coffee...!
.

gcmartin

#18 Post by gcmartin »

A community member wrote:The discussion on this thread was directly related to the Lighthouse64 issues and bugs which I reported, Some of these, related to DVD-load operation, were deflected or dismissed with the observation that a frugal install on a USB flash drive would make more sense. Since I do not agree, I chose to address that claim by discussing the issues which make a flash install less than ideal, thus presenting DVD-boot as the superior solution. That obviously makes *this* the correct place to discuss those issues. *This* is the place for developing those views through discussion and argument, for those who wish to do so.
I think it is important to note that it is Does NOT Matter whether it is a Frugal Puppy/Full Puppy/Live-Media Puppy on the issue of Malware in the system.

Most of us should understand that even though there are some advantages to booting one vs another, the running system with the triggers that malware presents is whats of concern.

Here to helps

nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#19 Post by nooby »

A wild naive idea that I hope many comments on.
gcmartin wrote:Most of us should understand that even though there are some advantages to booting one vs another, the running system with the triggers that malware presents is whats of concern.
If I do get what you intend here then I do agree.

But as Flash our most active Moderator often point out
that if one do as he suggests to boot using a CD
and to have a USB a save file and to only
connect that one if there is something important
and use the CD or DVD to save other small changes.

And the most important. To take out the Harddisk from
that computer then that set up is rather safe.

Especially if one reboot now and then to get rid
of the malware that have entered?

My naive question for us who can not use CD/DVD
and have to use USB instead.

Suppose I take out the HD and only connect
an eternal HD when I want to save something important.

Okay maybe the malware is clever enough to sense that
connection and sneak it's bad code over to that HD?
while I save the scientific pdf texts and .doc and so on.

For to prevent that to happen could one do like this?


I take out the HD and only boot frugally from USB
and that one having a partition too small to have
room or any malware? Then it has another partition
for savefile but which are password protected?

Would the malware be able to sneak over the bad code then?
Would it read the password while I save something?

And to be extra cautious if I want to save on the big
external HD then I save it first on the save partition
on usb and then shut down the computer and
then boot up again and save on the external by
copy over from the usb? I mean the malware
would be gone and can not copy over the bad
code because that one need the active program
that lurk in RAM memory?

Or am I too naive here? sorry for confusing text
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

gcmartin

Why use Live media? ... a single view of its use

#20 Post by gcmartin »

Here's how I have used my PUPs over the years.

I build my Live media from a Puppy ISO. I insure that it is built in Multi-session mode. One then boots the Live media created from the ISO, and uses the PUP as they see fit. This includes web needs, subsystems added from PPM, tailoring, and data generation/manipulation as one finds necessary. When they have completed their use (and this could be weeks later in some of my cases) when I shutdown I am asked if I want to save all prior work that was done in the system. I reply Yes and target it to the CD, and Puppy takes care to save all of my work that exist in the PUPPY filesystem(s).

When Puppy reboots, it detects the saved session(s) and incorporates the save session into the running OS.

What I just described is that NOTHING is written onto ANY media until I, personally, instruct the system to do so. There is another means for me to use as provided by some/most Puppy distros; namely, a "button" on the desktop that will execute a save-session to take an interim snapshot of my running Puppy.

From a security standpoint, I am in control. The only time this can be compromised (and it can be compromised) is if someone pushes my buttons.

It is meaningful to understand that given the right kind of information, and an understanding of behavior, there are methods which can be brought to bear to exploit any of us. But, there must be an environment for this to occur and an understanding on behavior such that an exploitation can occur.

I am NOT sharing this as a demo of how to be secure! I am sharing it to show that in my case, my booted system is safe and intact prior to any save-session I do. But, for those PCs that I use in production (meaning, I have them running all the time, I rarely boot/reboot them unless I want to save an instance of the system for some reason). And, since everything that occurs is real-time in the RAM filesystem, I have a limited exposure that would force eradication of a breach; namely the offending save session.

My Live media (DVD/CD/BluRay) has timed stamped save-sessions. I can use or physically delete any particular save session that I might want to (but, this is a manual operation, for Puppy does not provide tools to do this as of this posting.)

Live media is one safe methodology if for no other reason than the fact that one can selectively discard, or boot without certain save-session on the Live media.

Thus, one can consider this physical security versus some automated internal subsystem such as an Antivirus Subsystem. I do PPM install Antivirus software to be used to periodically check the system. I sometimes do boot other OSes and the virus signatures are routinely scanned for anyway, even though I recognize that exposure is limited.

In contrast, a Frugal and Full installations have their Puppy filesystems active to the running system and things are mounted to the running system at boot time. These have a differing level of exposure that requires different management.

I hope this give some understanding that contributing members can point to for better understanding of why some of us may choose Live media booting. The advantages of using Live media outweigh the need for shortened boot time. In my cases, the fact that it takes 1-3 minutes to boot does NOT poised a negative impact for me given that once its up, it does everything the Frugal-Full systems can do. It may be thought to be faster because there is NO need to access anything other than the RAM based filesystem to operate. (NOTE: I always have a partition on HDD that is a SWAP partition as this provide a measure of system stability without impacting performance.) My systems that I use all the time (2 PCs) run all the time and are almost never rebooted after initial setup and tailoring. Thus boot time in non-existent in comparison to up-time and use-time.

Here to help

Post Reply