News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:New Mac ransomware spreading through piracy by vladvasiliu on Wednesday July 01, 2020 @07:32AM (#23700307)
> Windows 10 has just what you describe [link]

I've looked into this, but it feels limited to me. It's all or nothing. I can't have App1 only access Documents and App2 only access Pictures. Once I give any one app access to the "protected folders", it has access to all the protected folders.

Re:New Mac ransomware spreading through piracy by jstanley on Wednesday July 01, 2020 @08:49AM (#23700751)
You should check out Qubes OS. https://www.qubes-os.org/

All applications run inside a VM, and you set up different VMs for different tasks. The windows are all composited onto one seamless desktop environment, with the colour of the window decorations telling you which VM it's in. You can copy and paste between the VMs with a special keyboard shortcut, and you can manually copy files between them as well, but otherwise they have no access to each other.

If you open some ransomware in one VM, it can't touch (or read, or know of the existence of) any of the data in other VMs.

Re:New Mac ransomware spreading through piracy by gentleman11 on Wednesday July 01, 2020 @12:49PM (#23703592)
How is usability? It’s a very appealing model but it sounds confusing
Re:New Mac ransomware spreading through piracy by aj3 on Wednesday July 01, 2020 @01:40PM (#23704223)
It's great at what it does. Much more useful than I expected, feels more thought out than some commercial alternatives.

XEN Virtualization with their custom X-passthrough driver is super fast as well. No hardware acceleration of course, but it didn't feel choppy at all. As long as you have enough RAM (I'd say 16GB at least), it works pretty much like bare metal (even though there are several VMs running in background at all times for network, fw, usb, etc), way faster than Spice, VNC, RDP or Virtualbox (talking about UI not number crunching).

Re:New Mac ransomware spreading through piracy by vladvasiliu on Wednesday July 01, 2020 @01:16PM (#23703953)
That's what I've been wondering too, especially now when more and more applications are starting to use hardware graphics acceleration.
Re:New Mac ransomware spreading through piracy by jstanley on Wednesday July 01, 2020 @05:36PM (#23707016)
I used it briefly but found interacting with weird USB devices (mainly Arduino and RTL-SDR) slightly too annoying.
Re:New Mac ransomware spreading through piracy by aj3 on Wednesday July 01, 2020 @07:52AM (#23700418)
Yes, it's does not give you SELinux/seccomp level of granularity. But then again, there is a slight chance that users might actually understand what it's for and how to use it, unlike SELinux/seccomp.

In practice though, if you're a power user you probably won't run shady binaries, and if you do - nothing will protect you from them as your user is likely a member of administrative group / wheel and you use sudo/su/doas somewhat regularly. While if you're worried about protecting your employees/family members, just making sure they are not part of the same admin groups and enforcing basic Software Restriction Policy / AppLocker / SELinux / RBAC will be enough to protect against 99% threats out there.

Re:New Mac ransomware spreading through piracy by vladvasiliu on Wednesday July 01, 2020 @08:07AM (#23700489)
I agree that SELinux is much too complex for "regular people".

However, the issue I see with this approach is that the default location for saving pretty much everything on Windows is the Documents folder. So I think most people would just blindly agree to give access to this folder.

Most malware comes from apps people wilfully install, so they would probably grant them access to the folders because they would want to use them.

The approach I like best is what MacOS does, where you have to approve access to a specific folder. The drawback of the MacOS implementation is that I cannot define specific folders I want protected (say .ssh).

Re:New Mac ransomware spreading through piracy by aj3 on Wednesday July 01, 2020 @08:32AM (#23700633)
I agree, at least an option to have more granularity would be a good thing. Maybe the upcoming changes to Android/iOS permission models will solve the problem of UI/UX and this will finally become fashionable.

However, there is also a question of properly enforcing granular per-process restrictions (without breaking backwards compatibility). It's not a trivial task, there are plenty of corner cases: race conditions, symlinks, alternate data streams, process hollowing... I don't expect any implementation to be full-proof in the first decade.