Security in Puppy Linux: running as Root

For discussions about security.
Message
Author
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

rdog
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2010, 20:47
Location: Quesnel, BC, Canada

#21 Post by rdog »

In general, puppy is secure because it is different. Malware is coded with a specific environment in mind.

However, consider this...

Running as root means that you have the right to run any command. A script running "dd if=/mnt/home/puppy/usb-image.iso of=/dev/sdc" as an example can burn an ISO image to the CD. Is it possible to ruin a CD and make it not bootable with dd? Yes, I believe so. Perhaps it would not be a loss of data for you depending on your practice but definitely it could be a time consuming annoyance to get back up and running.

Running as a restricted user would protect from such a command. But the nature of viruses and malware is that the payload is not always immediately evident. One can get a seemingly harmless program and use it for a very long time before the harmful payload is seen. In this case to protect from such a payload you would have to make a practice of always running as a restricted user, any code that could be infected.

Requiring buttons to be pressed, drives to be mounted, or scripts to run to perform "administrative" functions only adds protection if these requirements are not known to the attacker, or if they are not able to be run or done as the restricted user that the attacker has managed to get access to. (Note: GUI elements such as buttons, don't "do" anything in themselves, they call scripts or binary code to perform the activity).

Ultimately we have to make a decision to trust the code we are running, the source of that code and so on. Even the Linux kernel could have deliberate security vulnerabilities, but we trust that those people who review the source code, and the source code for the compilers which produce the binary executable, have our best interests in mind.

For my part, I use the browser as Spot. I generally download and compile from source the programs that I include in my SFS files. I remove any code that has been installed into the personal save files, and in the case of my USB puppy I only save changes at shut down and then I'm prompted by the shutdown script to decide if I want to save (customizations I have made). I trust that the original puppy ISO is free of malware. I use OpenVPN to tunnel to my home network for Internet access when I am away, so my communication is encrypted even if I'm connecting to an open wireless access point. I have Avast antivirus and occasionally update the definitions and scan all the files. Even Avast and the definitions are loaded from an SFS file at boot time.

Besides having backups of the personal save files and other data saved on separate USB sticks there is not much else to do.

My only real reason for wishing for multiuser support beyond Spot in Puppy has been when installing 3rd party binary applications where they refuse to run as root. Many of them will not run as Spot either.

Take Care,
Rob

User avatar
666philb
Posts: 3615
Joined: Sun 07 Feb 2010, 12:27
Location: wales ... by the sea

#22 Post by 666philb »

rdog .....

which apps are you wanting to run?
Bionicpup64 built with bionic beaver packages http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=114311
Xenialpup64, built with xenial xerus packages http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=107331

rdog
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2010, 20:47
Location: Quesnel, BC, Canada

#23 Post by rdog »

666philb wrote:rdog .....

which apps are you wanting to run?
Hi 666philb,
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.

The first app I tried to run was Lotus Notes 8.5.2. I finally gave up and installed the windows version to run from wine. Not an easy project and not the most desirable way to run it.

My next most desired app to run from puppy is Vmware Workstation. I will be putting some effort into this since I have several Vmware guests that I would like to run, some are required for my job.

I haven't tried using Fido which I see has appeared with Puppy Slacko. But now I have been distracted by trying to build my own puppy with woof LOL.

I've had some issues with woof which I'll save for another thread.

Take Care,
Rob

User avatar
666philb
Posts: 3615
Joined: Sun 07 Feb 2010, 12:27
Location: wales ... by the sea

#24 Post by 666philb »

hi rdog,

whilst i can't actually test the software you're wanting to use, i've had some success using this to run stuborn 'root hating' programs http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=72667 once installed you'll need to alter the' /usr/bin/puppy-chrome ' script to point at the binary you're trying to run.

puppy does have vwmare player, http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=62492 how it differs to work station i don't know.but i've had windows7, various linux's and iox running on it
Bionicpup64 built with bionic beaver packages http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=114311
Xenialpup64, built with xenial xerus packages http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=107331

rdog
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2010, 20:47
Location: Quesnel, BC, Canada

#25 Post by rdog »

666philb wrote:hi rdog,

whilst i can't actually test the software you're wanting to use, i've had some success using this to run stuborn 'root hating' programs http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=72667 once installed you'll need to alter the' /usr/bin/puppy-chrome ' script to point at the binary you're trying to run.

puppy does have vwmare player, http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=62492 how it differs to work station i don't know.but i've had windows7, various linux's and iox running on it
Thank you for that info 666philb, I'll come back to this issue soon.
Take Care,
Rob

snayak
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed 14 Sep 2011, 05:49

#26 Post by snayak »

Hi All,

What I see is in this forum is,

1. many says running puppy as root has problem, it is not safe.

2. many says running puppy as root has no problem, it is safe.
-Do they mean, running puppy from CD/DVD is safe?
-Do they mean, running puppy from HDD frugal is safe?
-Do they mean, running puppy from HDD full installation is safe?

When I goto IRC, it prints, running root is unsafe! Still we can go. But biggest trouble is, some IRC servers like DALNet doesn't even let us go in! Directly refusing stating that you are logged in as root!

What to do about it?

Sincerely,
Srinivas Nayak
[Precise 571 on AMD Athlon XP 2000+ with 512MB RAM]
[Fatdog 720 on Intel Pentium B960 with 4GB RAM]

[url]http://srinivas-nayak.blogspot.com/[/url]

User avatar
Monsie
Posts: 631
Joined: Thu 01 Dec 2011, 07:37
Location: Kamloops BC Canada

Security in Puppy Linux: running as Root

#27 Post by Monsie »

snayak,

I think many Puppy Linux users would agree that safety really is up to the individual using common sense whether one runs as root or not...
When I goto IRC, it prints, running root is unsafe! Still we can go. But biggest trouble is, some IRC servers like DALNet doesn't even let us go in! Directly refusing stating that you are logged in as root!

What to do about it?
In this circumstance, one can choose to run as a user with limited rights (non root access) in Puppy Linux. One can use spot:

Code: Select all

# su -l spot
# whoami
spot
# exit
logout
# whoami
root
Monsie
My [u]username[/u] is pronounced: "mun-see". Derived from my surname, it was my nickname throughout high school.

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

#28 Post by nooby »

Seems to be very individual these things.
I am a pessimist. I trust that nothing on internet is safe.

As soon as you connect to internet some ill willing person
can have a program that target you personally and them
do their best to hack in.

What I have heard is that being non-root only protect the
files in that restricted use area. The hacker could still
hack themselves into the root account if they have that knowledge
and resources and so on.

So maybe we should not be too overly confident but
also be realistic about it?

I know too little.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

User avatar
Monsie
Posts: 631
Joined: Thu 01 Dec 2011, 07:37
Location: Kamloops BC Canada

#29 Post by Monsie »

rdog wrote:
My only real reason for wishing for multiuser support beyond Spot in Puppy has been when installing 3rd party binary applications where they refuse to run as root. Many of them will not run as Spot either.
For the record... Will you provide some examples of 3rd party apps you've found that refuse to run either as root or as spot in Puppy?

Thanks,
Monsie
My [u]username[/u] is pronounced: "mun-see". Derived from my surname, it was my nickname throughout high school.

snayak
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed 14 Sep 2011, 05:49

#30 Post by snayak »

Hmmm...

Another thing is that, many of our members say, puppy linux was created to be used as a single user system. It cant be used as a server.

1. To my knowledge, linux itself is a multiuser os.
So, how puppy linux is single user system?

2. We are happy that puppy linux be better used as a Desktop os, a single user system. When question os adding another user comes, why people think that it shall be used as a server? I think, when people say, add another unpriviledged user, they mean providing a less permitted user, but again they will use their system as a simple Desktop, not a server in the university or their office! Cant we make it such that it adds just a less priviledged user and yet work as Desktop only, no server functionality and no connections from outside to the machine. (which i think, is the need of a server)

3. Does providing add user facility, shall increase the size of puppy linux os?

4. What ways a multi user Desktop os (like windows xp?) differs from now a days puppy?

I am new to all these. Forgive.

Sincerely,
Srinivas Nayak
[Precise 571 on AMD Athlon XP 2000+ with 512MB RAM]
[Fatdog 720 on Intel Pentium B960 with 4GB RAM]

[url]http://srinivas-nayak.blogspot.com/[/url]

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

#31 Post by musher0 »

I agree with gposil in this old thread:

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 60&t=49025

Why are we going over this again?
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

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

#32 Post by greengeek »

musher0 wrote:I agree with gposil in this old thread:
That old thread was well worth a read. I thought I would repost Aragon's contribution regarding secure hardware:
Attachments
secure hware.jpg
(35.13 KiB) Downloaded 1078 times

gcmartin

Helping a user

#33 Post by gcmartin »

@Snayak asks some very good questions.

Some of our most honored security persons should address these. And, it probably should be done, not so much as a security question, but in terms of how he presents his questions of us.

Microsoft, nor Apple, nor mainstream Linux, nor Unix are viewed as single user. (security issues aside for a moment)

BarryK started his Linux project distro in a effort to keep it as simple as possible for ease of understanding and ease of implementation. As such he took steps to "trim" the system to what he felt is a easy to implement system that should you have a router and an ethernet cable will get you a desktop office that will connect to the internet. This is notwithstanding that there are other LAN services present. His PUPPY implementation will make use much of what the LAN has to offer without ever offering any services from the PC to the LAN. This, in essence, intended to be a client ONLY distro.

Over the years, community members have added/attempted to add services to this client model such that PUP can extends services to other members on the LAN. Examples of these "server" services are FTP, SMB, NMB, etc. such that files/folders/applications that are created or exist on the PUP can be used by other LAN members just as those non-PUP LAN members have been providing to the LAN for years.

Today, excepting for couple of PUP distro, PUPPY continues to follow that model. But, what has changed is that knowledgible members can add server services to the LAN such that PUPs can participate just as those other non-PUPs provide the LAN.

There are several reasons why PUPPY started as it did. The most prevalenet is that it started when dial-up internet was the most prevalent internet service available in the world. 2nd, many users still had 486s/Pentium1-2-3 class PC that were due for retirement. By getting Puppy, one could recommission those old PCs and the download sizes were somewhat reasonable.

Today, much of that has changed. And, Puppy, at least for 32bit, has also been positioned to take advantage of internet speeds, shorten download times, internet reliability, 1995+ processors, and the 2006 model where PC manufacturers mandated a 1GB+ RAM model for all PCs sold with Microsoft loaded.

I know NONE of what I have shared addresses security, but, it at the very least provides a little understanding of what I have seen in my Puppy lifetime.

Several security discussions have arose over the years. And, as such, many ideas have been promoted.

Puppy will probably continue its current model for awhile as it does offer some very useful benefits. There are some things Puppy could do better, but, most of the changes that come are from members who offer an alternative. And over time, the good ideas are spotted and incorporated into the Woof build process for distro builder's inclusion. And, for those fuller server versions that provide OOTB services, they, too, are as secure as they come.

Security is NOT a back burner item, either in Linux or in Puppy.

I have been keeping a watchful eye over the years in this forum of discoveries of security breaches. Thus far, in observation, there has been much discussion, much from scares and warnings, ideas about multi-user(s), and thoughts. This far, I have not seen any reports of PUPPY being used as a launch threat within its LAN, nor Puppy being penetrated, thus far. But, in watching, no one as yet has provided a security monitor that would provide alerts in the Puppy LAN or the Puppy PC of a security breach or a PC security announcer to the console user. .

But, I am apprehensive that someone will be coming forward...hopefully or as someone percieves a real need in this product as it continues to mature.

Here to help

User avatar
vovchik
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue 24 Oct 2006, 00:02
Location: Ukraine

#34 Post by vovchik »

Dear gcmartin,

Very useful thoughts - I have been around here, too, for years and have been contributing - but not so much on the security front. But security is not a trivial question...and many supposedly secure systems are breached. We will get ideas, I am certain, and provide some solutions where security is critical. We are not the dumbest guys in the world... :)

With kind regards,
vovchik

User avatar
8-bit
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2007, 03:37
Location: Oregon

#35 Post by 8-bit »

I have Windows Vista on one hard drive and A bunch of versions of puppy on another on my PC.
I had an antivirus program, AVG free installed with Vista.
Then I found and installed a utility on Vista that would allow access to linux partitions.
Darned if the antivirus took some of my Puppy files and put them in it's locker.
I am pretty sure it is a false positive that is causing it.
I do not want to have to go to the locker and restore a Puppy file or files every time this happens.
So should I restore and exempt those files and then remove that utility that allows Vista and the antivirus to see the linux partitions and their contents?

Or should I take note of what Puppy files got put in the locker and download them again after removing the utility that is allowing access to the linux partitions?

Post Reply