Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: How dangerous is chroot?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Mexico and Sweden
    Posts
    1,669

    Default How dangerous is chroot?

    I bought an Acer C720 Chromebook for travel computing. The Chrome OS will not run Skype which is essential for my travelling. To my knowledge there is no project to install openSUSE on a x86 processor Chromebook - only ARM. I have tried installing several other Linux installations and the one that works uses "chroot". I have read that this is an open door to being invaded by hacking.

    Could someone explain how great this risk is and if there is some way I can reduce it? I don't store state secrets, but am concerned over exposing friends' E-mail addresses and names, and having passwords stolen.

    Thanks in advance.

    P.S. I know this would probably be more appropriate in an Ubuntu forum, but I have been using openSUSE since 9.1 and have found this forum to be far above others in its expertise and responsiveness.

  2. #2

    Default Re: How dangerous is chroot?

    eh would not work anyhow, as openSUSE doesnt really have skype and that goes double for its arm version.
    (seriously skype support in openSUSE is ****, it works in Mageia, Fedora and Ubuntu but not in openSUSE and I hope one day the rpm can be installed without the bull)
    chromebooks are a dead end for skype

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    25,547

    Default Re: How dangerous is chroot?

    On 2014-02-25 19:06, ionmich wrote:
    >
    >


    > I have tried installing several other Linux installations and
    > the one that works uses "chroot". I have read that this is an open door
    > to being invaded by hacking.


    On the contrary. in Linux, chroots are used to protect programs or
    users, to limit what they can do. For instance, if the administrator
    suspects that the daemon "named" can be compromised (hacked), he puts
    that daemon in a chroot jail so that even if it is hacked it has no
    access outside of that chroot jail and can not damage anything, besides
    that daemon, that is.

    That's what a chroot is in Linux. In other systems it can mean something
    very different. Like what people talk when "rooting" an Android device.

    So, it depends what you really understand by "chroot".

    --
    Cheers / Saludos,

    Carlos E. R.

    (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith))

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    3,240

    Default Re: How dangerous is chroot?

    Quote Originally Posted by MadmanRB View Post
    it works in Mageia, Fedora and Ubuntu but not in openSUSE
    What? Last week I spent 2+ hours in an skype video call to another state with some people running windows. Their side froze/disconnected a couple of times, they had to call their IT people to get it back working. On my side it worked flawlessly on a netbook running oS 13.1 64bit.

    Was I dreaming?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Chicago suburbs
    Posts
    15,682
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: How dangerous is chroot?

    Quote Originally Posted by ionmich View Post
    Could someone explain how great this risk is and if there is some way I can reduce it?
    It depends on how chroot() is used. If used with care, it can improve security in some situations. If used carelessly, as a replacement for good security practices, then it can be a source of risk.
    openSUSE Leap 15.3; KDE Plasma 5.18.6;

  6. #6

    Default Re: How dangerous is chroot?

    Quote Originally Posted by brunomcl View Post
    What? Last week I spent 2+ hours in an skype video call to another state with some people running windows. Their side froze/disconnected a couple of times, they had to call their IT people to get it back working. On my side it worked flawlessly on a netbook running oS 13.1 64bit.

    Was I dreaming?
    without a workaround I mean, you still need to tweak the shortcuts and all

  7. #7

    Default Re: How dangerous is chroot?

    On 2014-02-25, MadmanRB <MadmanRB@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
    > eh would not work anyhow, as openSUSE doesnt really have skype and that


    I disagree. The 32-bit openSUSE-version of Skype works perfectly well on 32/64 bit openSUSE and has done so since
    openSUSE version 11.2.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    25,547

    Default Re: How dangerous is chroot?

    On 2014-02-26 10:22, flymail wrote:
    > On 2014-02-25, MadmanRB <> wrote:
    >> eh would not work anyhow, as openSUSE doesnt really have skype and that

    >
    > I disagree. The 32-bit openSUSE-version of Skype works perfectly well on 32/64 bit openSUSE and has done so since
    > openSUSE version 11.2.


    Wait.

    It is not the "openSUSE-version of Skype". It is the "Skype version of
    Skype". They make it, and they distribute it, not openSUSE. And they
    don't make it specifically for openSUSE, either.

    But it works, yes.

    --
    Cheers / Saludos,

    Carlos E. R.
    (from 12.3 x86_64 "Dartmouth" at Telcontar)

  9. #9

    Default Re: How dangerous is chroot?

    On 2014-02-26, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
    > Wait.


    I'll give you one minute!

    > Wait.
    > It is not the "openSUSE-version of Skype". It is the "Skype version of
    > Skype".


    The current download is skype-4.2.0.13-suse.i586.rpm after selecting from the `Choose your distribution' then choosing
    openSUSE 12.1 32-bit. Sounds like an openSUSE-specific version to me. If it happens to be identical to the other
    32-bit rpms, then the end-user isn't to know.

    > They make it, and they distribute it, not openSUSE.


    I never suggested otherwise.

    > And they
    > don't make it specifically for openSUSE, either.


    The filename suggests otherwise.

    > But it works, yes.


    ....which I suppose is all that matters!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    3,240

    Default Re: How dangerous is chroot?

    Quote Originally Posted by MadmanRB View Post
    without a workaround I mean, you still need to tweak the shortcuts and all
    Saying an application is not supported involves much more than a missing menu or desktop icon, right?

    And that's not my experience here. It installed a menu shortcut under Applications, automatically. To run it, I just go to the menu. I didn't have to do anything, not even tweak the audio settings, something I had to do in the past. Perhaps your experience is with an older version. The package I'm using is skype-4.2.0.13-suse.i586.rpm, running on oS 13.1 64bit, installed from Yast.

    What irked me in Skype was the latest update on Android, that ask for extended permissions that I found very invasive, considering they were not required in the previous version. But this is OT, better suited for an android forum.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •