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).
Neptr
joined 3 weeks ago
You mention "sane defaults". That might mislead someone because it is ambiguous. The terminal ~~defaults~~ used to default to a root prompt, exemplifying that it isn't a distro focused on sane defaults for a desktop distro.
Kali is a tool for a specific job. Its meant mostly for hacking or troubleshooting/analysis, being an OS for executing a collection CLI/TUI and GUI utils.
-Edited everything to make myself more intelligible.
It isn't a secure operating system. It is a toolkit for pen testing and red team hackers. Definitely not a daily driver kind of OS.
For nvidia hardware, use nvidia images of Aurora/Bluefin (or Bazzite if you want gaming out of the box). All the OSes I mentioned are based on Fedora Atomic and offer image options for nvidia proprietary drivers. They even signing the kernel drivers, so you can use Secure Boot.
Docker is good when combined with gVisor runtime for better isolation.
What is gVisor?
gVisor is an application kernel, written in memory safe Golang, that emulates most system calls and massively reduces the attack surface of the kernel. This is important since the host and guest share the same kernel, and Docker runs rootful. Root inside a Docker container is the same as root on the host, as long as a sandbox escape is used. This could arise if a container image requires unsafe permissions like Docker socket access. gVisor protects against privilege escalation by only using root at the start and never handing root over to the guest.
Sydbox OCI runtime is also cool and faster than gVisor (both are quick)
Really fun/interesting read.
In that case it is a ToS violation, not piracy. You aren't paying anything, nor does google lose any money since they have been already paid. We would have to stretch the definition of piracy to include other ToS violations since it is not a financial lose.
Let's extend the scenario. If YouTube ToS required you to click every ad to use their service, would it be piracy if someone doesnt follow those instructions? I think it would be a ToS violation, but what damages could Google even seek?
I hear people sometimes mention that "Google needs to pay somehow to keep YouTube running." I have no sympathy for Google since they conspired to intentionally push out other video hosting platforms to create monopoly on the market. It is their own fault that videos aren't more spread out among providers.
How would you even pirate YouTube anyways?
I recommend Mull. It is security/privacy hardened Firefox and built by using Fennec as a base. Always use Fennec over Firefox because it removes telemetry, proprietary code, and strongly protects against browser fingerprinting. Comes with support for most (if not all) desktop Firefox extensions. I highly recommend using uBlock Origin, ask anyone and they'll tell you it is the best content blocker available.
Another good browser is Cromite. It is security hardened Chromium with built-in ad/content blocking, decent fingerprinting protection, and strong site isolation. It doesn't have support for extensions because upstream Chromium on Android doesn't either and it is hugely complex to port.
Did you enter into a contract saying you must watch ads to use the service? Is ad blocking against ToS? I don't think either are true, and a "click to consent" isn't legally binding. Either way, I will never not block ads as it is important from a privacy and cyber security perspective.
Nyarch honestly looks like a joke distro and most of its features are not worth IMO.
view more: next ›
Thanks for some updated context.