When does the Puppy linux security model make sense?

Question

I have just spent a few hours playing with Puppy linux, which has some very nice features, but there are some things about its approach to security (at least the default settings) that worry me:

1. It seems that the intended way to use it is to run everything as root
2. There is no password for root (by default-- of course I could add one)
3. There is no automated (or even a simple non-automated) way of getting security updates for packages, as far as I can tell. (I might have missed something.)

I have always had drummed into my head the importance of having a complex password, of not browsing the internet as an admin/root user, and of keeping system software (and browser, and plugins) up to date with patches for the latest vulnerabilities. However, despite what looks to me like a recipe for disaster (outlined above), Puppy is popular enough to have a lot of spin-offs, so there must be scenarios in which the apparent lack of security is a non-issue. What are they?

Answer 1

Puppy is a toy distro, for hobbyists. That is the only scenario where the Puppy (lack of) security model makes sense.

Agencies which study information security publish mitigation strategies based on the statistics of intrusions they see. Here is the Australian government's list:

http://dsd.gov.au/infosec/top-mitigations/top35mitigationstrategies-list.htm

They estimate that following the top 4 strategies would stop 85% of intrusions. These are:

1. Patch applications e.g. PDF viewer, Flash Player, Microsoft Office and Java. Patch or mitigate within two days for high risk vulnerabilities. Use the latest version of applications.

2. Patch operating system vulnerabilities. Patch or mitigate within two days for high risk vulnerabilities. Use the latest operating system version.

3. Minimise the number of users with domain or local administrative privileges. Such users should use a separate unprivileged account for email and web browsing.

4. Application whitelisting to help prevent malicious software and other unapproved programs from running e.g. by using Microsoft Software Restriction Policies or AppLocker.

Puppy fails on all of these counts. Serious distros such as Fedora, OpenSUSE, Debian etc. are far more secure. These distros all have active security mailing lists which provide timely security patches, offer Application whitelisting via AppArmor and/or SELinux and of course, don't run everything as root (honestly, wtf?).

If you value your security, don't use Puppy for anything serious.

Answer 2

I have never heard of Puppy Linux being compromised in 6 years of use as a frugal install. I believe this is because Puppy runs with most service's turned off ( try using a web security site such as Shields Up. I have done extensive security testing as part of my work as a Linux Educator and have found Puppy to be more secure than Ubuntu even in root due to the above service reasons. Of course if you run puppy as a remaster as a live cd with a browser added its very secure, (with no hard drive mounted while on the Web).This is the method as recommended by police forces around the world for a totally secure system.

Answer 3

I did think of one situation in which something like Puppy Linux would be fairly safe (or so I think-- I welcome comments.) If you run it from a Live CD on a system with no mountable storage devices (which means no hard drive in the system, or at least not one that you ever use), then even if you visit a web site that exploits some hole in the unpatched browser, the next time you reboot your system will be clean.* Of course, between the time when you have visited such a web site and your reboot, there could be some keylogger catching any passwords you enter, so you would have to be careful, perhaps only visiting bookmarked websites unless you weren't planning to log in anywhere. You could save files on a USB flash drive, though again you would have to be careful about what web browsing you did while it was connected (or before it was connected).

*I have read about viruses (though thankfully they are supposed to be rare) that can infect your BIOS or some other piece of firmware, and if that happened then a reboot wouldn't help.

Answer 4

Over 30yrs programming in dozens of languages from assembly to Oracle database administration, and I've found nothing more secure and reliable than Puppy Linux.

Like all Unix/Linux systems, Puppy Linux security is a very different world than the Microsoft one most are familiar with. The disparaging expressed in other answers is completely understandable though from the Microsoft perspective, but stems from a lack of understanding that there other approaches to security.

In general, Microsoft Windows O/Ss assume full access to everything unless explicitly denied. Unix/Linux assumes no access to anything unless explicitly granted. This goes a long way in preventing unauthorized access.

The *nix root user is granted full access to most everything, though even root is routinely prevented from doing things like executing a file that does not have the execute permission flag set and connecting to another host via SSH without a password or prearranged key-sharing.

Unlike "native" Linux, Puppy Linux has been optimized for a single-user environment. The single-user, root, has full control of that machine and thus has the ability to better secure it from intruders. If you need to accommodate multiple users, try one of the many other fine Linux distributions.

Puppy Linux's use of the unionfs/aufs stacking file systems keep all but recently altered files on read-only layers. This provides an "undo" capability that allows easier restoration of the entire system to a known-good condition. As a last resort, the original system as distributed is kept on the bottom read-only layer where it can be rebooted to while preserving subsequent changes on the upper layers.

Though seldom discussed, frequent patching of software is a multi-edged sword. New versions must always accommodate current hardware which often creates glitches in inter-operating with older software and hardware. That's why, if you want to keep anything up-to-date, you have to keep everything up-to-date.

Patching may be the only viable defense in Microsoft environments, but every Linux comes with a large toolbox of techniques to keep systems secure while running on hardware that's not the latest and greatest.

Puppy Linux is mostly used by programmers, systems administrators and analysts for their daily computing needs doing things like...

• Internet access of dozens of websites simultaneously from several machines/user.
• Developing software in almost any language ever invented.
• Experimenting with endless permutations and combinations of software configurations.
• ... and even checking email and social media while answering questions here.