A word on limitations

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.

For keeping tabs on what your software is up to and blocking legitimate software from phoning home, Little Snitch for Linux works well. For hardening a system against a determined adversary, it's not the right tool.

I like this.

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
1 comment in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post
[–] 3 points 7 months ago*

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 [web-archive]

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?

  • source