GNU-Linux hardening is useless

This opinion isn’t shared by the author in their actions, as they are known for their contributions to Whonix; both as a security researcher (by their own admission) and (are to this day accredited) as a developer.

So, the basic premise of the impermanence module is to flush all state on (re)boot. By default, NixOS is already capable of rebuilding your entire system from the config file(s). The impermanence module simply aids in achieving the desired system workflow for no state without reinventing the wheel. In effect, It’s as if you’ve just done a reinstall and setup everything as you like. But you get to experience this on every reboot. For someone that’s perpetually disturbed by state, which has been the case since my Windows-days*, this would finally grant me a peace of mind that I’ve been yearning for years. So, to answer your question, it would help me get (at least one step) closer to stateless Fedora Atomic without giving up general usability.

what does the community think of it?

It’s important to note how the Linux community interacts with change. In the past, whenever a change has been significant enough to influence individual workflows, it often provoked strong reactions. This was evident when systemd was introduced and adopted by distros like Arch and Debian. Even though systemd was arguably superior in essential aspects for most users, it failed to meet the needs of at least a vocal minority. Consequently, community endeavors were set up to enable the use of Debian or Arch without systemd.

Similarly, the introduction of immutable distributions seems to upset some people, though (at least to me) it’s unjustified. Immutable distributions don’t necessarily alter the traditional model. For instance, the existence of Fedora Silverblue doesn’t impose changes on traditional Fedora; let alone Arch or Debian.

But, overall, most Linux users aren’t bothered by it. Though, they often don’t see a use for themselves. Personally, I attribute this at least in part to existing misconceptions and misinformation on the subject matter. Though, still, a minority^[1] (at best ~10%) actually prefers and uses ‘immutable’ distros.

Do the downsides outweigh the benefits or vice versa?

Depends entirely on what you want out of your system. For me, they absolutely do. But it’s important to note that the most important thing they impose on the user is the paradigm shift that comes with going ‘immutable’. And this is actually what traditional Linux users are most bothered by. But if you’re unfamiliar with Linux conventions, then you probably won’t even notice.

As a side note, it’s perhaps important to note that the similarities between traditional distros are greater than the similarities between immutable distros. Also, Fedora Atomic is much more like traditional Fedora than it is similar to, say, openSUSE Aeon or Vanilla OS. Grouping them together as if they are a cohesive group with very similar attributes is misleading. Of course, they share a few traits, but overall, the differences are far more pronounced.

Therefore, it is a false dichotomy to simply label them as traditional distros versus immutable distros. Beyond these names, which we have assigned to them, these labels don’t actually adequately explain how these systems work, how they interact, how their immutability is achieved (if at all), what underlying technologies they use, or how they manage user interactions. The implications of the above. Etc.

Could this help Linux reach more mainstream audiences?

The success of the Steam Deck and its SteamOS are the most striking and clear proof of this. So, yes. Absolutely.

1. Not accounting SteamOS users.

Nixos tends to lean on the term reproducible instead of immutable, because you can have settings (e.g files in /etc & ~/.config) changed outside of nix’s purview, it just won’t be reproducible and may be overwritten by nix.

Interesting. If possible, could you more explicitly draw comparisons on how this isn’t quite the same over on say Fedora Atomic? Like, sure changes of /etc are (at least by default) being kept track of. But you indeed can change it. libostree doesn’t even care what you do in your home folder. Thus, changes to e.g. ~/.config (and everything else in /var^[1]) are kept nowhere else by default.

1. Which happens to be more crowded than on other distros as folders like /opt are actually found here as well.

They claim to have a lot of features.

What features are you referring to?

As I understand it, it’s basically trying to answer the following question: What if we could start over and use existing building blocks to make a simple yet complete system using the Linux kernel? All changes have been made in accordance to that basic premise. From replacing GNU in GNU/Linux with BSD, to choosing dinit over systemd as init system.

I hope they succeed (as long as it’s not immutable)

Are you one of those with a raging hateboner towards everything immutable? I ask this as I don’t see any reason to bring this up in the first place.

I didn’t downvote myself, but did consider it.

For one, it felt a bit out of place; Fedora isn’t defined by systemd, nor Red Hat or IBM. One clear example would be how Fedora has chosen to stick with Btrfs; contrary to Red Hat’s demands. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t deny any partnership or whatsoever. But it’s not like Fedora’s community has no agency.

Secondly, corsicanguppy’s comment seems to imply that Fedora only sticks to systemd out of some obligation towards IBM/RedHat or something. As if the overwhelming majority of distros don’t default to systemd.

Thirdly, Poettering works for M$ now. Sure. But systemd remains a Linux project. And quite a good one at that. Even if the likes of dinit and s6 are starting to offer some healthy competition, it’s undeniable that systemd continues to have the advantage in terms of received man-hours (in development) and adoption. I hope that Fedora eventually gives others the chance to shine. But outright ditching systemd without a perfect replacement is just foolish.

Systemd is bloated

The bloat argument has absolutely no weight as long it’s not properly defined. One’s bloat is the other’s sane default and vice versa. Please, if you’re engaging in good faith, come up with a definition by which the likes of dinit and/or s6 are not bloated while systemd is. Please be complete and rigorous in your assessment.

and known to present security risks.

If you’re referring to what’s addressed in Madaidan’s article, you should not forget that Whonix -the very distro Madaidan used to be a security researcher at- employed systemd to enhance security. And while one might say a lot about Poettering, one simply can’t deny that they’ve got a sound understanding of good security standards and how to implement them. It’s therefore unsurprising that both Kicksecure and secureblue (i.e. Linux’ finest when it comes to hardened distros) heavily rely on systemd for their bidding.

Don’t see why looking at alternatives wouldn’t be seen as positive growth.

At least we can agree on this 😉.

Is this a good list?

The link definitely provides some good info. It’s better than nothing. However, it may or may not fall short based on how secure you’d like to make your system.

Anything else I should do to secure a Mint install?

What is it you’re trying to protect and from whom? Whenever the topic of security comes up, one simply can’t engage meaningfully without mentioning a threat model.

In this case, I’ll assume you’re just your average Joe. And, depending on how you engage with your system, Linux Mint might be fit from the get-go. However, if you actively engage in downloading random jank from the internet and have ‘survived’ with the help of Microsoft Defender Antivirus, then you should know that a safety net as such doesn’t exist over on this side. Sure, security through obscurity might save your ass a couple of times. But it’s inevitably a losing battle.

So, without knowing your threat model, note the following important advice that the article somehow hasn’t touched upon:

• Know that you, the user, are the largest attack surface. Even if some distros like Fedora and openSUSE (with the latter AFAIK scoring the best^[1] according to Lynis) actually put in great work to offer pretty secure systems, they absolutely won’t be able to protect you against yourself.

1. It’s important to mention that this excludes security-first distros like Kicksecure and secureblue. Nor is Qubes OS considered as it’s technically not even a Linux distro. Other distros like Tails or Whonix are also not considered as they’re not meant to be used as daily drivers and/or for general use.

Does anybody in this sub using Fedora Secureblue?

I do. And have done so for almost a year now.

What is your opinion?

It’s pretty neat. Though, don’t expect to roll your way in without any troubles if you don’t take the effort to read its documentation. Fedora Atomic already does things its own way. However, secureblue, by virtue of its superior security standard, adds its own set of ‘rules’ that one should abide. Personally, I absolutely love how this is enforced. But I can understand why it might be a bit overwhelming for those new on the block. But I have personally helped introduce relative newbs to secureblue and they managed (with some help). So you should be fine; their community on Discord also has been pretty helpful in my experience.

So, if your first priority for your desktop operating system is for it to be Linux-based and your second priority is that it’s properly hardened, then you simply can’t go wrong with secureblue.

I was about to write a long piece comparing different security-focused systems, but I retracted for the sake of brevity. Please feel free to ask a specific comparison if you will.

Yeah, it seems that they even acknowledge that Tor and Mullvad are better for extreme threat models.

"The only browsers that can provide sophisticated fingerprinting protection against advanced scripts are Tor Browser & Mullvad Browser.

If you have an extreme threat model (Ex. Political dissident, journalist, or if you are in some other kind of high risk situation), please use one of those browsers."

I suppose we’d have to commend them for being fair.

As such, this distribution would need to be able to handle running for weeks on end without a reboot.

So, it has to be something stable (i.e. receive little to no updates) that’s capable of updating without requiring a reboot. That makes any stable distro a candidate. As such, choose either:

• Debian or something based on it
• Gentoo (stable branch)
• Nixos (stable channel)
• openSUSE Leap
• Ubuntu or something based on it