this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
103 points (97.2% liked)
Linux
48692 readers
1183 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Except it is secure by design.
But you're right about it not being meant as a daily driver.
What do you mean secure by design? What part of it is secure. Compare it to actually security focused Linux operating systems like QubesOS, Kicksecure, or Secureblue. Literally any OS that supports the Brace tool (made by the creator of DivestOS) is much more secure than Kali Linux. Kali is purpose built for red team work, not being secure (aka reducing attack surface or designing around a threat model).
Kali is secure as in once it's configured, it cannot be accessed without creds, keys etc. That meets the definition of 'secure'. It's just Linux with a bunch of pre installed packages.
Of course something can always be more secure. But saying Kali isn't secure is like me saying your PC isn't secure because it isn't air gapped like my most secure PC.
PCs aren't secure. Linux default isnt secure. Kali has so many apps/tools installed by default that it isnt comparable to default Linux. It has massive attack surface and no security design, therefore calling it secure isn't accurate.
If no effort was put into the security design of an OS, why call it secure?
Okay if I turned off password auth, just used keys, disabled the Kali user and root login, how are you breaking in? Where's the vulnerability? Which cve or cwe are you able to exploit?
A large attack surface doesn't mean insecure. It just means less secure.
Source: I literally pentest for a living. No, I don't even use Kali on a regular basis.
My point exactly. A large attack surface means less secure. My point was that Kali isn't focused on being a secure OS. It is all about the tools. Even without a vulnerability, a secure OS should protect against unknowns.
You failed to answer my question. You're clearly missing the point intentionally. You're either a troll or retarded.
I am not a troll. You don't need to be an ass.
Just because a system doesnt have a CVE doesn't make it secure. It needs proper exploit mitigations. Read why Linux isn't secure here.. The article is written by the lead developer of Whonix OS (Security hardened Debian with a focus on anonymity). If you had checked out any of the references from my previous comments you would have learned more about why I have this opinion.
Kali isn't any more secure than regular Debian, while also having a larger attack surface, and no kernel hardening, protecting of GUI, or application isolation. What makes it "secure"?