I remember before Little Snitch there was ZoneAlarm for Windows[0] (here is a good screenshot[1]). No clue if the current version of ZoneAlarm does anything like that (have not used it in 2 decades). I always found it weird that Linux never really had anything like it.
This reminded me of running Kerio Personal Firewall. When Kerio ended I switched to either ZA or Comodo firewall, one of them introduced a neat feature of running executables in containers. Made clicking random things so much easier. But the best part with all of these was restricting windows to where it could barely do anything. "RandomXYZ.DLL wants to execute random what and connect to random where? I dont think so MS." lol
There was also Tiny Firewall which got bought by Computer Associates around 2005. Probably the most complicated or fine grain control for me at that time in Windows XP.
Wow. Insane throwback. I think I first learned about ZoneAlarm from some PC magazine my parents bought for me. Completely forgot about this great piece of freemium!
No, the Windows firewall in its default configuration does not restrict outbound connections in any way. Any application can make any outbound connection it wants. If an application attempts to listen for incoming connections from external sources and there is not an existing policy, Windows will pop up a dialog asking the user if they want to allow this and if so whether it should be allowed to listen on all networks, only networks marked as "private", or for domain-bound corporate computers only networks where the domain controller is reachable.
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.
Okay hear me out, I use little snitch for a while. Great product. Love finding out what phones where. I make every single request (except my browser, because I'm fine with their sandbox) block until I approve.
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?
> All a long way to say, anyone know anything about this company?
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.
Well, that is obvious, is it not? It means They are interested in The Plan and have enough power that a vague comment is all you gonna get. Cannot have Them finding out that we are on to Them. Though of course, The Plan already accounts for that, so They already know and will do Something about it. Want facts? Wake up, do your Research!
Various intelligence agencies are willing to pay 2-3M for 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.
> Said motivation could be a nation state handing them $XXX million dollars
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.
>why in the world would a nation-state give a damn about Little Snitch, especially to the tune of $XXX million dollars?
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.
I just tried littlesnitch and it did not resolve very many ips to domains, which is pretty basic. It also failed to identify most processes, and they were grouped under "Not Identified". It appears these are known limitations of the Linux version [1]. So for that alone I need to stick with opensnitch.
[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
"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." https://obdev.at/blog/little-snitch-for-linux/
I've used OpenSnitch for years, and while LittleSnitch definitely has a better UI for showing which process is making which connections over time, OpenSnitch does a pretty good job here. I get a modal popup when a program that hasn't made a connection tries to make a connection, and I can either allow/deny in one click, or further customize the rule e.g. allowing ntpd to connect, but only to pool.ntp.org on port 123.
Where LittleSnitch is definitely ahead is showing process connections over time after said process has been allowed.
Personally I'd be fine with a commercial license with source available here... the issue isn't the price, it's the fact that you're asked to MITM every network connection you make under the control of a binary blob.
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.
Open source is rarely free as in free beer. Many have a non-commercial use clause GPL-like licenses, Patent liabilities, and if you are a business you pay per seat for the current compiled binary install/support.
The fact is, if people really want to pirate work... there is no way to capture every user sale.
I like FOSS with a tax-deductible recommended donation link, but it is embarrassing when your are the one that finds out whether these buttons actually work on projects that are important to the community. For the amount of abuse devs endure, the least we can do is pay for their beverages of choice, and support their work in other ways.
In business, it is better to give away a "lite" community version for folks to still have fun, and a "Pro" version with specific features critical for businesses.
I like what the https://polyhaven.com/ team does, as it gives content to everyone doing small projects... but charges a reasonable fee for asset search and auto-download plugins.
Mostly, it is wise to separate community works from commercial projects. =3
I’ve been researching the “best” way to build a little outbound network proxy to replace credential placeholders with the real secrets. Since this is designed to secure agents workloads, I figured I might as well add some domain blocking, and other outbound network controls, so I’ve been looking for Little-snitch-like apps to build on.
I’ve been surprised to find that there aren’t a ton of open source “filter and potentially block all outbound connections according to rules”. This seems like the sort of thing that would be in a lot of Linux admins’ toolkit, but I guess not! I appreciate these guys building and releasing this.
Something almost no firewalls get right is pausing connections (NOT rejecting them) until I've decided whether to allow or not. The only firewalls I've seen do this are Little Snitch for Mac, and Portmaster for Windows (before they made it adware / started locking existing local features behind the subscription).
Firewalls don't do this because they are built at the wrong layer to do proper pending calls. It's too narrow of a design space for most firewalls to care.
True, most firewalls aren't built to pause for user input. But then again, that's why almost no firewall software is suitable for this user experience.
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...)
Probably should throw it out there that I'm building something inspired by littleSnitch for windows. Currently a bit stealthy about it. But when I crowd source the funding for a code signing cert I'll get it out there. Lots of inspiration from LittleSnitch, in spirit if not actual code.
I'd be curious to hear additional details if you can share - got a timeline, or somewhere I can enter my email address for updates? I'd love to alpha/beta test if you're looking for testers.
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.
Incredible. LittleSnitch is must-have for macOS and trying to get equivalent functionality on Linux was painful. So very happy to see this, and very happy to give the developers at Objective Development my money.
Is that true? If so, that’s not a good sign. I remember how impressed I was by ZoneAlarm in the early 2000s asking permission for itself to connect to the Internet, using the exact same dialogue it presented for any other program, with no dark patterns suggesting that the user should give preferential treatment to it.
Doesn't seem to be, I can see LittleSnitch itself connecting to yoyo.org and obdev.at. GP may be referencing a past bug, either in LittleSnitch or macOS.
MAC is already there on most modern distros, but people are often scared to go through training, and turning on rule enforcement.
Wanted to do a simple wizard/tray-tool tool in wxwidgets, but can never seem to find the time. Someone will make it novice-user friendly eventually. =3
Does anyone know how the blocking functionality works? I worked on some eBPF code a few years ago (when BTF/CO-RE was new), and while it was powerful, you couldn't just write to memory, or make function calls in the kernel.
Is there a userland component that's using something like iptables? (Can iptables block traffic originating from/destined to a specific process nowadays?)
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.
An operating system is roughly broken into three parts: the kernel, the core system tools, and the shell (the desktop environment and/or the CLI shell). Linux: Linux kernel, GNU coreutils (usually), KDE/Gnome/etc + CLI shells. macOS: XNU, BSD userland + launchd/etc, Aqua/Cocoa. Windows: NT kernel, Win32/WinRT/etc, Windows Shell.
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.
More the opposite. macOS is a veneer of nix, but underneath it is the XNU microkernel. Lots more nuance since Apple took over and added a lot of their own performance and API improvements to
You're correct, but for a bit more context: The macOS kernel is XNU, which is derived from/based on the Mach kernel, but heavily modified. The kernel itself is open source but some drivers/kernel extensions are not so it's not actually usable (unless you provide your own implementations of those).
Congrats to Linux users on getting a great tool from a quality development shop. Objective Development is one of our (Mac users) exemplars for attention to detail and fit & finish.
Congrats to Objective Development for expanding their well-loved tool to a new platform. You guys rock.
"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.
So if this is free to use on linux, what is to stop someone from doing what Colima did to Docker? Aka make a tiny Linux VM on MacOS and package Little Snitch within that?
Little Snitch requires packet inspection. If you ran it in a Linux VM, it will inspect packets within the VM. So... kind of useless for monitoring connections on the host.
It barely has any of the features of the MacOS version, there is no shortage of cracks for Little Snitch, and there is Lulu. Other than that, I am not sure.
> 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?
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.
> They don't build their own machines or write their compilers or write their own crpyto code or ... so many other things.
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.
Yess, the return of the actually good landing page for the technically-minded. Now all they need to do is roll back the macOS one that looks and reads like it was designed by a marketing agency that knows nothing about computers (or even Little Snitch itself).
It’s not really necessary on Linux. Linux systems work without 40 invisible background services phoning home to the mothership to leak your hardware identifiers for FAA702 collection.
I run both (LS on Mac, at least), they do different things - pi.hole is a great ad blocker which applies to all of the devices on your network. Little Snitch is doing something different - it tells you every call that every app you use is making, and allows you to approve or deny each one. So, you can block telemetry for apps, or you can block certain apps from contacting certain servers, or you can just use it to watch what apps on your system are calling out to where.
To clarify, I'm aware that pihole is not intended to run on a client OS, and doesn't monitor at a process level. I'm focused on the intended effect rather than the process itself (blocking malicious/ad servers). And I think I framed my initial question incorrectly as if LS and PiHole as subtitutes. It's perfectly fine and even preferrable to use both as layered protection. I'm just thinking however when it comes for bang-for-buck it seems like PiHole is the better value proposition if you could only set up one.
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.
LS seems to not be claiming any security promise on Linux because it can't make any guarantees given eBPF limitations. But the entire purpose is different and there is very little overlap in my view. PiHole is entirely (I think?) just applying the blocklist made easy. LS allows you to build the blocklist in real time.
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.
LittleSnitch isn't for ad blocking (only), it is for tracking/blocking/allowing ALL connections from various processes. PiHole only blocks DNS requests to known ad servers.
Completely different thing. A littlesnitch type thing is for all traffic. Pihole is a DNS query thing that prevents various ad content from being loaded. It's also trivially easy for a malicious application with network access to bypass any instance of pihole on your LAN by doing its own DNS over HTTPS lookups to its own set of server(s) by IP.
You might be surprised, there are plenty of low effort attacks out there that just install a crypto miner and phone home periodically without doing much to cover it up.
> 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
The above feels like an utter AI slop nonsense, sorry. I believe eBPF, the Linux Kernel feature, is absolutely capable for accuracy and perfect processing of network traffic.
Have you ever checked Calico or Cilium, or at least, Oryx?
I remember before Little Snitch there was ZoneAlarm for Windows[0] (here is a good screenshot[1]). No clue if the current version of ZoneAlarm does anything like that (have not used it in 2 decades). I always found it weird that Linux never really had anything like it.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZoneAlarm
[1]: https://d2nwkt1g6n1fev.cloudfront.net/helpmax/wp-content/upl...
This reminded me of running Kerio Personal Firewall. When Kerio ended I switched to either ZA or Comodo firewall, one of them introduced a neat feature of running executables in containers. Made clicking random things so much easier. But the best part with all of these was restricting windows to where it could barely do anything. "RandomXYZ.DLL wants to execute random what and connect to random where? I dont think so MS." lol
Who remembers BlackICE Defender tho?
https://archive.org/details/BlackICE_Defender
Completely forgot about ZoneAlarm. I remember using it in the early 2000s!
Such nostalgia! I probably forgot about it after switching over to Linux 25 years ago.
Same!
There was also Tiny Firewall which got bought by Computer Associates around 2005. Probably the most complicated or fine grain control for me at that time in Windows XP.
Wow. Insane throwback. I think I first learned about ZoneAlarm from some PC magazine my parents bought for me. Completely forgot about this great piece of freemium!
I learned about it from Leo and Patrick on The Screen Savers
It's interesting hw lng it took for linux to get a user friendly application firewall like OpenSnitch
i loved zonealarm! and also pained myself with all the little rules and upkeep lol
isn’t this essentially built into Windows these days? although it seems to come with a lot of programs pre-approved.
No, the Windows firewall in its default configuration does not restrict outbound connections in any way. Any application can make any outbound connection it wants. If an application attempts to listen for incoming connections from external sources and there is not an existing policy, Windows will pop up a dialog asking the user if they want to allow this and if so whether it should be allowed to listen on all networks, only networks marked as "private", or for domain-bound corporate computers only networks where the domain controller is reachable.
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.
Most of the windows firewalls tools are just front ends for the integrated one with more sensible defaults.
Okay hear me out, I use little snitch for a while. Great product. Love finding out what phones where. I make every single request (except my browser, because I'm fine with their sandbox) block until I approve.
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?
> All a long way to say, anyone know anything about this company?
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.
Everything has a price though… (I also use little snitch)
> Everything has a price though…
What is that supposed to mean in this context?
Well, that is obvious, is it not? It means They are interested in The Plan and have enough power that a vague comment is all you gonna get. Cannot have Them finding out that we are on to Them. Though of course, The Plan already accounts for that, so They already know and will do Something about it. Want facts? Wake up, do your Research!
Given sufficient motivation the little snitch dev could essentially supply chain attack every user, or even specific users.
Said motivation could be a nation state handing them $XXX million dollars
Or even sell the whole org for say $50M and no one ever mentions anything.
I think the type of users it attracts (techies, crypto ppl, etc) makes it worth more too.
> I think the type of users it attracts (techies, crypto ppl, etc) makes it worth more too.
No, this by itself doesn't make Little Snitch or any business worth $50M. You're dreaming. That's a crazy valuation.
Various intelligence agencies are willing to pay 2-3M for 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.
That’s what i meant. Thanks for reading my mind. :)
> Said motivation could be a nation state handing them $XXX million dollars
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.
>why in the world would a nation-state give a damn about Little Snitch, especially to the tune of $XXX million dollars?
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.
its been known for some time that little snitch and other personal firewalls are established targets of three-letter agencies https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13813160
How does it compare to opensnitch? https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch
I just tried littlesnitch and it did not resolve very many ips to domains, which is pretty basic. It also failed to identify most processes, and they were grouped under "Not Identified". It appears these are known limitations of the Linux version [1]. So for that alone I need to stick with opensnitch.
[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
"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." https://obdev.at/blog/little-snitch-for-linux/
I've used OpenSnitch for years, and while LittleSnitch definitely has a better UI for showing which process is making which connections over time, OpenSnitch does a pretty good job here. I get a modal popup when a program that hasn't made a connection tries to make a connection, and I can either allow/deny in one click, or further customize the rule e.g. allowing ntpd to connect, but only to pool.ntp.org on port 123.
Where LittleSnitch is definitely ahead is showing process connections over time after said process has been allowed.
When I looked at OpenSnitch (years ago), it didn't support running headless on a server. Am I mistaken about this, or has it changed?
You can run daemons on several nodes (different machines) and view them all through a central ui, it is pretty cool.
The UI is a separate package. Though you might just configure the firewall yourself at that point.
It is free, no subscription at all and truly open source.
As software should be.
how should maintainer make money?
Personally I'd be fine with a commercial license with source available here... the issue isn't the price, it's the fact that you're asked to MITM every network connection you make under the control of a binary blob.
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.
Open source is rarely free as in free beer. Many have a non-commercial use clause GPL-like licenses, Patent liabilities, and if you are a business you pay per seat for the current compiled binary install/support.
The fact is, if people really want to pirate work... there is no way to capture every user sale.
I like FOSS with a tax-deductible recommended donation link, but it is embarrassing when your are the one that finds out whether these buttons actually work on projects that are important to the community. For the amount of abuse devs endure, the least we can do is pay for their beverages of choice, and support their work in other ways.
In business, it is better to give away a "lite" community version for folks to still have fun, and a "Pro" version with specific features critical for businesses.
I like what the https://polyhaven.com/ team does, as it gives content to everyone doing small projects... but charges a reasonable fee for asset search and auto-download plugins.
Mostly, it is wise to separate community works from commercial projects. =3
Hunt, gather.
Nice to have this as an extra option, but being a linux user I value openness of code. I am pretty content with opensnitch + opensnitch-ui.
I’ve been researching the “best” way to build a little outbound network proxy to replace credential placeholders with the real secrets. Since this is designed to secure agents workloads, I figured I might as well add some domain blocking, and other outbound network controls, so I’ve been looking for Little-snitch-like apps to build on. I’ve been surprised to find that there aren’t a ton of open source “filter and potentially block all outbound connections according to rules”. This seems like the sort of thing that would be in a lot of Linux admins’ toolkit, but I guess not! I appreciate these guys building and releasing this.
Something almost no firewalls get right is pausing connections (NOT rejecting them) until I've decided whether to allow or not. The only firewalls I've seen do this are Little Snitch for Mac, and Portmaster for Windows (before they made it adware / started locking existing local features behind the subscription).
Firewalls don't do this because they are built at the wrong layer to do proper pending calls. It's too narrow of a design space for most firewalls to care.
True, most firewalls aren't built to pause for user input. But then again, that's why almost no firewall software is suitable for this user experience.
> Compatible with Linux kernel 6.12 or higher
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...)
This has the author's blog post on it https://obdev.at/blog/little-snitch-for-linux/
Probably should throw it out there that I'm building something inspired by littleSnitch for windows. Currently a bit stealthy about it. But when I crowd source the funding for a code signing cert I'll get it out there. Lots of inspiration from LittleSnitch, in spirit if not actual code.
I'd be curious to hear additional details if you can share - got a timeline, or somewhere I can enter my email address for updates? I'd love to alpha/beta test if you're looking for testers.
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.
It's a custom WFP driver. No timeline yet..
If you or I guess anyone is curious sereno[hyphen]alpha[dot]ramble[thenumberoftechn9ne'sfavoriterum]@passinbox.com
Incredible. LittleSnitch is must-have for macOS and trying to get equivalent functionality on Linux was painful. So very happy to see this, and very happy to give the developers at Objective Development my money.
LittleSnitch doesn't tattle on itself phoning home.
Is that true? If so, that’s not a good sign. I remember how impressed I was by ZoneAlarm in the early 2000s asking permission for itself to connect to the Internet, using the exact same dialogue it presented for any other program, with no dark patterns suggesting that the user should give preferential treatment to it.
Doesn't seem to be, I can see LittleSnitch itself connecting to yoyo.org and obdev.at. GP may be referencing a past bug, either in LittleSnitch or macOS.
Or just use SELinux rules as instructed...
MAC is already there on most modern distros, but people are often scared to go through training, and turning on rule enforcement.
Wanted to do a simple wizard/tray-tool tool in wxwidgets, but can never seem to find the time. Someone will make it novice-user friendly eventually. =3
Does anyone know how the blocking functionality works? I worked on some eBPF code a few years ago (when BTF/CO-RE was new), and while it was powerful, you couldn't just write to memory, or make function calls in the kernel.
Is there a userland component that's using something like iptables? (Can iptables block traffic originating from/destined to a specific process nowadays?)
As articulated in the author's own blog post:
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.
> The macOS version uses deep packet inspection to do this more reliably. That's not an option here.
Isn't MacOS just *nix under the hood? Genuinely curious about this difference.
An operating system is roughly broken into three parts: the kernel, the core system tools, and the shell (the desktop environment and/or the CLI shell). Linux: Linux kernel, GNU coreutils (usually), KDE/Gnome/etc + CLI shells. macOS: XNU, BSD userland + launchd/etc, Aqua/Cocoa. Windows: NT kernel, Win32/WinRT/etc, Windows Shell.
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.
More the opposite. macOS is a veneer of nix, but underneath it is the XNU microkernel. Lots more nuance since Apple took over and added a lot of their own performance and API improvements to
From what I understand, macOS uses weird kernel implementation, which is almost open source, but not 100%
You're correct, but for a bit more context: The macOS kernel is XNU, which is derived from/based on the Mach kernel, but heavily modified. The kernel itself is open source but some drivers/kernel extensions are not so it's not actually usable (unless you provide your own implementations of those).
BSD family with fewer GPL parts each year
Congrats to Linux users on getting a great tool from a quality development shop. Objective Development is one of our (Mac users) exemplars for attention to detail and fit & finish.
Congrats to Objective Development for expanding their well-loved tool to a new platform. You guys rock.
>attention to detail
Why does LittleSnitch (Mac) pre-resolve IP addresses, before user presses Accept/Deny?
IMHO DNS queries shouldn't initiate without user input.
Question for devs, not me.
>The daemon (littlesnitch --daemon) is proprietary, but free to use and redistribute.
Worth noting that it is closed source. Would be worth contributing patches to OpenSnitch to bring it up to parity with Little Snitch.
https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch
Thanks for sharing Open Snitch
Also see Safing Port master:
https://safing.io/
Can someone elaborate on the limitations bit?
"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.
So if this is free to use on linux, what is to stop someone from doing what Colima did to Docker? Aka make a tiny Linux VM on MacOS and package Little Snitch within that?
Little Snitch requires packet inspection. If you ran it in a Linux VM, it will inspect packets within the VM. So... kind of useless for monitoring connections on the host.
It barely has any of the features of the MacOS version, there is no shortage of cracks for Little Snitch, and there is Lulu. Other than that, I am not sure.
I don't think it'll have access to the macOS connections, and certainly cannot act at the kernel-supported level as a firewall on the Mac side.
Also from [0].
> 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?
[0] https://obdev.at/blog/little-snitch-for-linux/
Two of the three components of LittleSnitch for Linux are open source. The eBPF (kernel portion) and UI are fully open 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.
Yep, I trust the obdev.at / Snitch guys.
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.
This comment seems a bit confused.
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?
That seems... not correct?
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.
> If I, the end user, am the target
You're not a target, anonymous rando.
They don't build their own machines or write their compilers or write their own crpyto code or ... so many other things.
> They don't build their own machines or write their compilers or write their own crpyto code or ... so many other things.
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.
Their copy of the compiler. Just an example. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This seems pedantic and I think you know what they’re questioning and why.
If they trust the devs why would they not trust them to not yolo deploy new versions?
because a company worthy of trust doesn't yolo their versions. a company that does yolo versions is not trustworthy.
Because it might not be the developers doing the deploying, but a malicious actor?
> I think you know what they’re questioning and why.
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?
Options range from carefully targeted phishing or social engineering attacks to poor opsec and a five dollar wrench.
> a five dollar wrench.
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.
Some targets are more valuable than others. A firewall product has obvious security value. The fact that it requires high privilege is another reason.
I have the same thoughts about other Mac apps. e.g. iTerm2 - cause they "see" so much sensitive data.
?! The same way every other developer that has been hacked. You surely cannot be suggesting you're un-hackable. That seems ludicrously hubristic.
> The same way every other developer that has been hacked.
There's not one single way, so, no, you're just hand-waving here.
Just saying developers have been hacked. Underrated existence proof.
I wish applications like this could coordinate with upstream firewall like opnsense
Yess, the return of the actually good landing page for the technically-minded. Now all they need to do is roll back the macOS one that looks and reads like it was designed by a marketing agency that knows nothing about computers (or even Little Snitch itself).
doesn't work on arch (btw)
It’s not really necessary on Linux. Linux systems work without 40 invisible background services phoning home to the mothership to leak your hardware identifiers for FAA702 collection.
Linux maybe, not so true of all the DEs and apps installed on it
Really like Lulu as an alternative to LittleSnitch https://objective-see.org/products/lulu.html
Why would one use this over PiHole?
This is different. This shows you what in your operating system is making connections out and to where.
I run both (LS on Mac, at least), they do different things - pi.hole is a great ad blocker which applies to all of the devices on your network. Little Snitch is doing something different - it tells you every call that every app you use is making, and allows you to approve or deny each one. So, you can block telemetry for apps, or you can block certain apps from contacting certain servers, or you can just use it to watch what apps on your system are calling out to where.
To clarify, I'm aware that pihole is not intended to run on a client OS, and doesn't monitor at a process level. I'm focused on the intended effect rather than the process itself (blocking malicious/ad servers). And I think I framed my initial question incorrectly as if LS and PiHole as subtitutes. It's perfectly fine and even preferrable to use both as layered protection. I'm just thinking however when it comes for bang-for-buck it seems like PiHole is the better value proposition if you could only set up one.
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.
LS seems to not be claiming any security promise on Linux because it can't make any guarantees given eBPF limitations. But the entire purpose is different and there is very little overlap in my view. PiHole is entirely (I think?) just applying the blocklist made easy. LS allows you to build the blocklist in real time.
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 uses hardcoded addresses when DNS doesn't work.
Some telemetry might not be recognized by pi-hole as it is new or has nothing to do with ads.
LittleSnitch isn't for ad blocking (only), it is for tracking/blocking/allowing ALL connections from various processes. PiHole only blocks DNS requests to known ad servers.
Completely different thing. A littlesnitch type thing is for all traffic. Pihole is a DNS query thing that prevents various ad content from being loaded. It's also trivially easy for a malicious application with network access to bypass any instance of pihole on your LAN by doing its own DNS over HTTPS lookups to its own set of server(s) by IP.
I mean, if you're at the point where your machine is compromised by a process with full network access little snitch won't help much either.
You might be surprised, there are plenty of low effort attacks out there that just install a crypto miner and phone home periodically without doing much to cover it up.
Have you ever checked Calico or Cilium, or at least, Oryx?
I guess you haven't actually implemented anything in eBPF.
Can you elaborate? I thought eBPF was created to be used in high performance scenarios, so I am confused why this shouldn't be posssible.