this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
15 points (85.7% liked)
Linux Gaming
15825 readers
57 users here now
Gaming on the GNU/Linux operating system.
Recommended news sources:
Related chat:
Related Communities:
Please be nice to other members. Anyone not being nice will be banned. Keep it fun, respectful and just be awesome to each other.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
None of the desktop environments included with Linux Mint (really) support Wayland. X11 allows any app to keylog easily. X11 is quite bad for Security. Cinnamon has experimental support.
Yeah, any app that runs on your computer... at which point you have bigger problems than keylogging.
When's the last time you've heard of keylogging being a common problem on Linux btw?
My point was that X11 is insecure. Security through obscurity is not security. Wayland does not send every keypress to every application, which protects against this attack vector. Wayland is both significantly smaller and more secure than X11. X11 was designed in a time when software was built to simply trust anything that runs on the computer. We need to move past just putting our trust in the software we run. At the very least raise the barrier to perform such an attack.
Do you sandbox each and every process? Do you whitelist everything each process can do? Every file it can access, every which way it can use the network, every bit of CPU and RAM and hardware resource it can use?
If you don't do that, why do you want to impose upon me a complete block of inter-window communication, which I use for desktop automation, and which has basically zero security impact in the wild?
I don't mind Wayland having security features, but why are they so heavy-handed and non-optional? Things like firewalls, AppArmor, cgroups, they're all customizable. Why is Wayland all or nothing?
The reason I mentioned keyloggers is because it allows an attacker to perform privilege escalation by recording your sudo/root password and automating an attack. I searched it up and I do see automation tools for Wayland, maybe they aren't as developed as those for X11. For you, your usecase makes sense, though i (personally) wouldnt take that risk. The majority of users do not use such tools and should probably use Wayland.
So does putting a script called
sudoin your PATH.Keylogging is one of the lamest, most inefficient methods of attack. If you can run code on someone's machine there are so many other things you can do.
The fact Wayland has wasted so much time and complicated things so much focusing on a non-issue is mind-blowing.
Don't worry, this is not the only thing holding back Wayland adoption.
Just because a malicious application is installed on your computer doesn't mean it should be allowed to freely exfiltrate data. It does not require root to perform this attack, a malicious script or AppImage could just as easily steal your keypresses. Or an extension in your browser, or a mod for your favorite game. You shouldn't need to read all the code for every application (including each subsequent patch and update) just to be sure it isn't stealing your data. Plus, why not use Wayland?
Again, if you have malicious code running on your computer it can do lots of things. It can access your files, the network etc. You have to keep an eye on security vulnerabilities all the time anyway, which thanks to FOSS is easier. You're pigeonholing on keylogging but there are lots of ways that malicious code can hurt.
Windows has chosen to go the route of allowing malware in and dealing with the fallout later. It didn't work out so great. UNIX and Linux have been on the side of not allowing malware in at all if possible.
If you want to use a system that restricts access to all apps to all resources all the time you can, but I think you'll find it very limiting and inconvenient. But it would be your choice.
In the meantime, if my choice is to disregard the purely hypothetical threat of keylogging, I should be able to do that, especially since breaking inter-window communication also breaks all desktop automation.
And that's why I don't use Wayland: it broken desktop automation and it won't give us a choice in the matter, for the sake of one, randomly selected, purported security issue.
Security is preemptive. Keylogging is not a hypothetical, it just hasn't happened to you. Neither is it random, desktop linux is differentiated from linux server by its GUI. It is much harder to make linux desktop secure. I see threat as one of many in a long list of the weaknesses present in desktop linux.
I am not trying to say you shouldn't have the choice to use X11, my original comment was about how Linux Mint doesn't offer the choice of a DE that supports Wayland.
Similarly, a flower pot falling on your head is not a hypothetical, it just hasn't happened to you.
But does it mean you should wear a helmet every time you go outside?
To begin with, the probability of keylogging being used in an attack against you is abysmal. Not because it can't be done, but because it's a complicated, inefficient attack, and if the attacker can run code on your machine there are much better ones.
Secondly, keylogging is still possible on Wayland, if the malicious code can attach to the relevant processes. Such as a vulnerability in your browser, which also happens to be a place where you type passwords and CC numbers a lot.
Third, as Wayland evolves it will have to develop better IPC features. You can't have a functional desktop with zero communication. And we'll be back to square one.
Fourth, desktop communication is not even that sensitive. 99% of it is stuff like "window id 0x09123 was maximized".
Last but not least, if keylogging were a real issue, don't you think it would have been addressed in the 40 years that X11 and Xorg have been around? It's fascinating how some people think that Wayland was the first to discover this previously completely unknown threat that threatens to doom us all.