hackslash dot org

OpenBSD Innovations

Posted: 2025-02-22 22:08:42

OpenBSD has contributed significantly to operating system security and development through proactive approaches. These include innovations like memory safety mitigations such as W^X (preventing simultaneous write and execute permissions on memory pages) and pledge() (restricting system calls available to a process), advanced cryptography and randomization techniques, and extensive code auditing practices. The project also champions portable and reusable code, evident in the creation of OpenSSH, OpenNTPD, and other tools, which are now widely used across various platforms. Furthermore, OpenBSD emphasizes careful documentation and user-friendly features like the package management system, highlighting a commitment to both security and usability.

The OpenBSD project, renowned for its proactive security approach, has contributed significantly to the broader computing landscape through numerous innovations. These innovations span a wide range of areas, from fundamental security practices to specific tools and technologies. The project champions a "secure by default" philosophy, prioritizing security in every design and implementation decision. This is manifest in practices like code audits, proactive vulnerability discovery and mitigation, and a strong focus on code correctness.

A cornerstone of OpenBSD's security approach is its integrated toolset, designed for robust security auditing and proactive defense. This includes tools like systrace, which allows detailed monitoring and control of system calls, facilitating the identification of potentially malicious behavior. tcpdump, a widely used network packet analyzer, originated in OpenBSD and remains a critical tool for network security analysis. The OpenSSH secure shell implementation, a ubiquitous tool for secure remote access, is also a product of OpenBSD development and exemplifies the project's commitment to secure networking.

Beyond individual tools, OpenBSD has pioneered several security technologies. The development of PF, a powerful and flexible packet filter firewall, has significantly improved network security management. pledge, a system call restriction mechanism, and unveil, a filesystem access control mechanism, allow applications to operate with reduced privileges, minimizing the potential impact of security vulnerabilities. These technologies represent a shift towards proactive security, limiting the damage potential of exploits.

OpenBSD has also championed memory safety techniques. The project has actively explored and implemented techniques to mitigate memory corruption vulnerabilities, a common source of security flaws. These efforts include the use of memory allocation safeguards, such as the malloc implementations with embedded randomization and integrity checks. The development and integration of compiler-based security enhancements, such as the use of ProPolice for stack smashing protection, further reinforce the project's commitment to code security.

Furthermore, OpenBSD has played a vital role in the development and promotion of cryptographic technologies. The project has actively integrated strong cryptographic algorithms and protocols into its core components and tools. This includes the development and maintenance of OpenBSD's own cryptographic framework, as well as contributions to wider open-source cryptographic libraries.

In conclusion, the OpenBSD project's commitment to security has resulted in a wealth of innovations that have significantly impacted the wider computing world. Through proactive security practices, robust auditing tools, advanced security technologies, and a focus on code correctness, OpenBSD continues to contribute to a more secure computing environment for all.

Summary of Comments ( 287 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43143777

Hacker News users discuss OpenBSD's historical focus on proactive security, praising its influence on other operating systems. Several commenters highlight OpenBSD's pledge ("secure by default") and the depth of its code audits, contrasting it favorably with Linux's reactive approach. Some debate the practicality of OpenBSD for everyday use, citing hardware compatibility challenges and a smaller software ecosystem. Others acknowledge these limitations but emphasize OpenBSD's value as a learning resource and a model for secure coding practices. The maintainability of its codebase and the project's commitment to simplicity are also lauded. A few users mention specific innovations like OpenSSH and CARP, while others appreciate the project's consistent philosophy and long-term vision.

The Hacker News post titled "OpenBSD Innovations" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43143777) discussing the OpenBSD innovations page (https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html) has generated a moderate number of comments, many of which express admiration for OpenBSD's consistent focus on security, code correctness, and proactive development practices.

Several commenters highlight OpenBSD's historical significance and influence on other operating systems and the wider software development community. They acknowledge features like pledge() and unveil() as pioneering security mechanisms that have inspired similar functionalities in other systems. The proactive approach of finding and fixing bugs before they become widespread vulnerabilities is also frequently praised, with commenters pointing to the project's dedication to code audits and their impressive track record.

Some comments delve into specific technical details of OpenBSD's innovations, discussing the advantages and disadvantages of certain features. For example, the discussion around pledge() includes its effectiveness in limiting the potential damage of exploits and the challenges of adapting existing software to its constraints. The conversation around unveil() similarly explores the granular control it offers over file system access and the potential complexities it introduces for developers.

A recurring theme is the contrast between OpenBSD's security-focused approach and the practices of other operating systems, often implicitly or explicitly referencing Linux. Some commenters suggest that while OpenBSD's strictness might be perceived as a barrier to entry or limit usability in certain contexts, it ultimately results in a more secure and robust system.

While acknowledging OpenBSD's strengths, some comments also offer constructive criticism or point out potential areas for improvement. For instance, some users discuss the perceived limitations of OpenBSD's hardware support compared to other operating systems. Others express the wish for broader adoption of OpenBSD's security practices in the wider software ecosystem.

Overall, the comments reflect a deep respect for the OpenBSD project and its contributions to computer security. While there are occasional critiques and nuanced discussions about specific features, the general sentiment is one of appreciation for OpenBSD's rigorous approach and the positive influence it has had on the industry.

NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-10 19:12:36

Network Address Translation (NAT) presents significant challenges for battery-powered IoT devices aiming for low power consumption. Because devices behind NAT can't be directly addressed from the outside, they must maintain persistent outbound connections to receive data, negating the power-saving benefits of sleep modes. Techniques like keep-alive messages or frequent polling to maintain these connections consume significant energy. This post advocates for solutions that bypass NAT, such as IPv6 with its vast address space enabling globally routable unique addresses for each device, or by employing intermediaries like a message broker positioned outside the NAT. These approaches allow devices to initiate communication only when necessary, drastically reducing power consumption and extending battery life.

The blog post "NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices" on golioth.io elaborates on the significant challenges Network Address Translation (NAT) presents to Internet of Things (IoT) devices, particularly those operating under low-power constraints. The core argument revolves around the inherent incompatibility between NAT's design, which assumes client-initiated connections, and the operational requirements of many battery-powered IoT devices that need to receive inbound data efficiently.

The author meticulously explains that conventional internet communication relies on devices having globally unique IP addresses. NAT, commonly implemented in home and enterprise networks, allows multiple devices to share a single public IP address, conserving the limited pool of IPv4 addresses. This is achieved by mapping internal private IP addresses to the public IP address and maintaining a translation table to route incoming traffic correctly. However, this mechanism typically requires the internal device to initiate an outbound connection first, establishing a mapping entry in the NAT table, before external services can reach it.

This poses a serious problem for low-power devices, as maintaining an active connection for inbound data consumes considerable energy. Keeping the radio active and regularly sending "keep-alive" messages to maintain the NAT mapping defeats the purpose of power-saving sleep modes. The article highlights the trade-off between responsiveness and battery life, forcing developers to choose between promptly receiving data and extending battery longevity.

The blog post further explores the difficulties in implementing workarounds like port forwarding and hole punching. Port forwarding, while a viable solution, requires manual configuration on the router and exposes security vulnerabilities. Hole punching, a technique involving both the device and a server connecting to a third-party rendezvous server to establish a direct connection, is described as complex and unreliable, especially behind symmetric NATs.

As a potential solution, the article advocates for protocols specifically designed for constrained devices, such as CoAP and MQTT, which operate over UDP and offer features like publish-subscribe messaging, reducing the need for constant connections. These protocols, combined with cloud services designed for IoT, can bypass the limitations of NAT by leveraging always-on cloud servers as intermediaries. The server maintains a persistent connection, acting as a bridge between external services and the low-power device, relaying messages efficiently while allowing the device to remain in a low-power state. In conclusion, the author emphasizes that addressing the NAT problem is crucial for the widespread adoption and efficient operation of low-power IoT devices, urging for greater consideration of NAT's implications in the design and deployment of such devices.

Summary of Comments ( 83 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43003999

Several commenters on Hacker News discussed the challenges of NAT traversal for low-power devices, agreeing with the article's premise. Some suggested solutions like using a TURN server or a lightweight VPN, while others pointed out the benefits of IPv6 in eliminating the need for NAT entirely. One commenter highlighted the trade-offs between power consumption and complexity when implementing these workarounds, and another mentioned the difficulty of managing NAT keepalives with devices that sleep frequently. The issue of scaling these solutions for a large number of devices was also raised. Several users shared personal anecdotes of struggling with similar NAT issues. One commenter proposed a simpler approach involving a central server that all devices could communicate with, bypassing direct peer-to-peer communication and thus avoiding NAT complications altogether.

The Hacker News post "NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices" generated several comments discussing the challenges of Network Address Translation (NAT) for low-power, battery-operated IoT devices.

Several commenters agreed with the article's premise. One highlighted the inherent difficulty in establishing inbound connections to devices behind NAT, emphasizing the power consumption overhead associated with maintaining persistent connections or using techniques like keep-alives. They also mentioned the complexities introduced by Carrier-grade NAT (CGNAT), where multiple layers of NAT further complicate inbound connections.

Another commenter pointed out the security implications of opening ports on a home router for these devices, suggesting that it exposes the entire local network to potential vulnerabilities. They advocated for cloud-based solutions like the one offered by Golioth (the article's author), where devices initiate outbound connections to a central server, eliminating the need for inbound port forwarding.

The discussion also touched upon alternative approaches to circumvent NAT limitations. One commenter suggested using protocols designed for peer-to-peer communication, like WebRTC, which can establish connections even behind NAT. However, another commenter countered that WebRTC still requires a signaling server and might not be suitable for all low-power applications due to its relatively high overhead.

Some commenters questioned the framing of NAT as the "enemy." They argued that NAT is a crucial part of the current internet infrastructure and that the real challenge lies in developing efficient protocols and architectures for IoT devices that can work within the constraints of NAT. They proposed solutions like using UDP hole punching or having devices establish outgoing connections to a central server.

One commenter explored the specific challenges posed by CGNAT, noting the scarcity of IPv4 addresses and the consequent widespread deployment of CGNAT by internet service providers. They mentioned techniques like STUN (Session Traversal Utilities for NAT) and TURN (Traversal Using Relays around NAT) but acknowledged their limitations and complexity, particularly for low-power devices.

Finally, a few commenters mentioned specific technologies and protocols, like MQTT and CoAP, which are commonly used in IoT and are designed to be efficient in low-power and bandwidth-constrained environments. They discussed how these protocols can be used in conjunction with cloud-based services to overcome the challenges posed by NAT.

Little Snitch feature nobody knows about

permalink

Posted: 2025-01-24 14:18:20

Little Snitch has a hidden "Deep Packet Inspection" feature accessible via a secret keyboard shortcut (Control-click on the connection alert, then press Command-I). This allows users to examine the actual data being sent or received by a connection, going beyond just seeing the IP addresses and ports. This functionality can be invaluable for troubleshooting network issues, identifying the specific data a suspicious application is transmitting, or even understanding the inner workings of network protocols. While potentially powerful, this feature is undocumented and requires some technical knowledge to interpret the raw data displayed.

The blog post "Little Snitch feature nobody knows about" by Objective Development, the creators of the macOS network monitoring and firewall application Little Snitch, elucidates a powerful yet underutilized functionality within the software: the ability to create highly granular and dynamic network rules based on specific parts of a URL, going far beyond simply allowing or denying connections to entire domains.

The author meticulously details how Little Snitch, while often perceived as a simple on/off firewall, provides sophisticated options for rule creation that leverage regular expressions. This allows users to meticulously control network traffic at a remarkably precise level. Instead of blocking or allowing all communication with example.com, users can craft rules that discriminate based on subdomains, specific paths, query parameters, or even fragments within the URL. For instance, a user could permit access to news.example.com while simultaneously blocking connections to ads.example.com, all within the same overarching domain. This empowers users to selectively permit essential functionalities of a website or application while simultaneously blocking unwanted tracking, analytics, or other potentially intrusive elements.

The post further emphasizes the practical applications of this feature with illustrative examples. It highlights the scenario of allowing connections only to specific API endpoints necessary for an application's core functionality while denying access to analytics-related endpoints. This granular control can enhance privacy, reduce unwanted network traffic, and even potentially improve performance by preventing unnecessary connections. The author also showcases how this can be used to block specific tracking parameters frequently embedded within URLs, offering a more nuanced approach to online privacy management than simply blocking entire domains.

Furthermore, the blog post provides a step-by-step guide on how to implement these advanced rules, complete with screenshots demonstrating the process within the Little Snitch interface. This practical walkthrough clarifies the process of using regular expressions within the rule editor, making the feature accessible to users who might be initially intimidated by the seemingly complex syntax. The clear and concise instructions empower users to immediately begin leveraging the full potential of Little Snitch's URL-based rule creation capabilities, transforming a potentially daunting task into a manageable and highly customizable privacy solution. The post ultimately underscores the hidden depths of Little Snitch, revealing its capacity to be far more than a simple firewall, but a precision tool for meticulously controlling network communication.

Summary of Comments ( 19 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42813231

HN users largely discuss their experiences with Little Snitch and similar firewall tools. Some highlight the "deny once" option as a valuable but less-known feature, appreciating its granularity compared to permanently blocking connections. Others mention alternative tools like LuLu and Vallum, drawing comparisons to Little Snitch's functionality and ease of use. A few users question the necessity of such tools in modern macOS, citing Apple's built-in security features. Several commenters express frustration with software increasingly phoning home, emphasizing the importance of tools like Little Snitch for maintaining privacy and control. The discussion also touches upon the effectiveness of Little Snitch against malware, with some suggesting its primary benefit is awareness rather than outright prevention.

The Hacker News post titled "Little Snitch feature nobody knows about" (linking to a blog post about Little Snitch's DNS traffic filtering) generated several comments, primarily focusing on the utility and practicality of Little Snitch and similar network monitoring tools.

Several users discussed alternative approaches to achieving similar network control. One user suggested using the built-in pf firewall on macOS, arguing it offered more granular control and was free, unlike Little Snitch. Another mentioned using hosts file entries for blocking specific domains, a simpler approach for managing known unwanted connections. LuLuFirewall was also brought up as a free and open-source alternative to Little Snitch.

The discussion also touched upon the effectiveness of such tools. One commenter highlighted that Little Snitch primarily addresses outgoing connections, offering limited protection against incoming threats. They emphasized the importance of a comprehensive security strategy beyond just connection monitoring.

Another commenter pointed out the learning curve associated with Little Snitch, acknowledging its powerful features but also its complexity for average users. They noted that the constant alerts could become overwhelming, potentially leading users to blindly allow connections, thereby negating the software's intended purpose.

Some users focused on specific use cases. One described using Little Snitch to identify and block telemetry sent by applications, appreciating its ability to reveal hidden network activity. Another mentioned its usefulness in diagnosing network issues, using it to pinpoint problematic applications or services.

A couple of comments explored the privacy implications. One commenter expressed concern over the potential for misuse of network monitoring tools, particularly by governments or corporations, to surveil user activity.

Finally, there was a brief discussion about the performance impact of Little Snitch, with one commenter mentioning a noticeable slowdown on older hardware.

Overall, the comments present a balanced perspective on Little Snitch, acknowledging its powerful features while also highlighting its complexity, potential for misuse, and the availability of alternative solutions. The discussion offers valuable insights for users considering network monitoring tools and emphasizes the importance of a well-rounded security approach.

Stories with Tag Firewall

OpenBSD Innovations

Summary of Comments ( 287 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43143777

NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices

Summary of Comments ( 83 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43003999

Little Snitch feature nobody knows about

Summary of Comments ( 19 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42813231

Summary of Comments ( 287 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43143777

Summary of Comments ( 83 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43003999

Summary of Comments ( 19 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42813231