Proposal: "I think I got hacked" sub-category of "User Support"

Feedback Forum Feedback
42

As a developer of Whonix for more than a decade, I can confirm there’s a large number of laymen who do a very superficial analysis and then think they found a security issue or have been hacked.

The problem is that laymen think that simple stuff such as a duplicate desktop icon can be evidence for a hack. People more knowledgeable on computer security, malware know that this doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. So laymen have to be told that in a diplomatic way, that they do not possess the required skills to perform malware analysis.

You absolutely need a FAQ about it. And it needs to be on the website, not in the forums, for increased authority.

Kicksecure / Whonix forums I am using one or another link in these cases:

This usually resolves the issue.

4 Likes
43

I support the initiative.

2 Likes
44

These two links might indeed answer most questions and could be placed under the

warning.

45

If you would allow my comment, I would say this:

Please do not use the word “forum”. Forum, by definition, is the place where people talk as they please.

Please do not make more rule to force people playing by your rules.

Please do not discriminate people by number of (quality) post they made, or by “rank”, e.g. Moderator or Newbie.

Please be invisible. If you can provide quality answer to a question, please provide it without saying who you are. Please just delete what not meeting your definition of quality without the word “deleted” or talking about it.

Please make your product in such a way that people can use it without question, like a pencil.

Please write a book full of quality information so people do not have to look elsewhere asking silly questions, if you cannot make your product like a pencil.

Please remember what questions you have asked when you were kindergarten. Did your teacher display a banner: PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING?

About Qubes security: Qubes is about giving you a false sense of security. If an Intel CPU is in your computer with ME enabled, you are done. Same goes with AMD and almost all recently manufactured computing devices too. Any three-letter-agency can send a “magic” packet to your IP address, and when it reaches your computer, no matter via Wifi, Bluetooth, Ethernet or whatever interface you use, your device becomes a reporting tool. And Qubes cannot stop it, you can be sure of that.

Qubes OS is a game, a good one. It can stop some thieves and small hackers. But unless you start making computer chips and build computer yourself, no software in the world can really protect you. People will think they got hacked, because they will get hacked one way or another. Instead of making a special room for them so you do not have to see and deal with them, please let them talk their mind, and help them instead with your expertise.

Thank you.

46

The very first big, red, scary warning box at the top of the installation guide says:

Warning: Qubes has no control over what happens on your computer before you install it. No software can provide security if it is installed on compromised hardware. Do not install Qubes on a computer you don’t trust. See installation security for more information.

How is it a “false sense of security” when we warn you before you even start the installation process?

(Note: I am not saying your speculative claims about hardware security are correct or incorrect. Rather, I am pointing out that if you believe your hardware cannot be trusted, then this warning applies.)

6 Likes
47

That is true, I have been warned. Others should have been warned too. But why do you want to create a separated category so you do not have to read posts of those who feel they got hacked in the first place? Instead of explaining it calmly to them how to distinguish a software bug from symptoms of being hacked, you are telling people: “You have been warned, so shut up!” Or did I miss your point?

48

There are many community members that are very skilled and patient in explaining how to distinguish a software bug from symptoms. For those nothing will change but the category name.

There are however also many …

  • members that will get infected by the paranoia and blow up the thread with their own delusions, be resistant to counseling and make a general mess of the thread often to the point that mods have to shut it down.

  • members that are not interested in reading / explaining for the 500rd time how to distinguish a software bug from symptoms.

  • new or interested users that get confused and have a hard time distinguishing between good and bad arguments.

These threads often take a lot of energy away from the other threads and strongly reduce the signal-to-noise ratio. Hence this idea of isolating such threads into an area were those wishing to engage can do so while others can safely ignore it without missing anything important.

I get your philosophy and share it. It is better to answer bad ideas with good arguments and moderation always feels a little bit like censoring. The flip side is that answering a flood of bad ideas all the time can get very tiring. That’s why we want to make it an opt-in sport. Makes sense?

Also when I made the proposal I myself wasn’t a member of the moderation team yet. Obviously mods can’t just mute a category and forget about it. So I won’t personally be ignoring these threads but still think it will help from a signal-to-noise perspective for most other members.

7 Likes
49

That would be ideal, but I don’t think that is possible without an almost miracle. Elaborated at length here why that is:

Good documentation is useful in theory to have something to link to. Often will be ignored even if pointing users to it but still good to have.

I think this warning might be insufficient. The user might just have purchased new hardware. Why would it be compromised? Why shouldn’t it be trusted?

What I would suggest is for Qubes to publish a user understandable threat model. The user would want to know “Does Qubes protect form advanced adversaries?”

I don’t think any software project says yes about themselfes.

On the other hand, Qubes slogan “A reasonably secure operating system” seems on point. All software and hardware projects are light years away from very secure or perfectly secure computing. For one, we don’t own our own hardware factories and even if we did, we couldn’t understand all the blueprints and source code to build all the hardware and software without trusting other people. So I don’t see how perfect secure computing would ever be possible.

Someone wondering why is it “only” “A reasonably secure operating system” instead of a perfectly secure operating system, well, that requires some digging. It has been explained at length in many places. The challenge is making this information easily found (and maybe easily understandable). Also why interesting, this information isn’t terribly actionable by users.

This is what Whonix writes on the topic
Technical Introduction chapter Does Whonix ™ / Tor Provide Protection from Advanced Adversaries? in Whonix wiki

5 Likes
50

Hello, I have not been active on here in awhile, but I have enjoyed reading this discussion. Whether my words add anything to the discussion or not, I cannot resist sharing some of my thoughts on it. There will be some quotes used, and a bit of how I operate when it comes to the thoughts or questions about being “hacked”.
I frequent some forums or circles that are loaded with paranoia, and questions as to whether someone or something can be trusted. I definitely fall under the layman category on tech and stuff, but that can be a positive. In these circles mentioned, there is a lot of finger pointing or labeling others as feds. If you stay anon or wear masks, you’re a fed. If you use real names and expose your face, you’re a fed. So I operate under the premise that everyone is a fed. I say nothing that I would not say directly to a feds face.
I apply this same practice to the hacked thing. I assume ALL hardware and software are hacked or ran by “feds”. I keep nothing on any device that I am not willing to show or lose. Anything important or secret is kept on paper and can be destroyed in seconds. And if “they” gain access to this, it means they have had to get through me, and at that point, none of it really matters.
Paranoia? “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.” I also operate under the “Two is one and one is none” concept. I have backup devices and I am willing to destroy one and move on, if I feel the need or one is suspected of being compromised. “Don’t let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner.”
Now, with all that said, “A reasonably secure operating system” is all I need for my system, and Qubes definitely meets that requirement, especially when bundled with Whonix. The “feds” and similar types have access, but until they’re willing to “bring it”? I’m not concerned by that type of “hack”. For those lower level thugs with their card fraud and such? Qubes and Whonix, along with my practices have that pretty well covered.
One last thing I will mention to possibly keep my words in line with this thread is this. I think the proposed sub-category is a good idea. And for those that think they got hacked, operate as though you have been at all times, and it will no longer matter.

1 Like
51

A post was merged into an existing topic: Trolls, sockpuppets and antisocial behavior

52

It is exactly a “false sene of security”.

A nation state adversary can remotely hack Qubes installed on an ordinary computer, even if it has no preexisting compromises.

But someone reading the warning would assume they are not compromised as long as their hardware was pristine before installing Qubes.

53

I have a feeling we’ve been through this before. This post by @Sven pretty much describes the way to go.

2 Likes
54

A nation state adversary can remotely hack Qubes installed on an ordinary computer, even if it has no preexisting compromises.

This is an oversimplification, a blanket statement which CANNOT be true. By the same measure, a nation state adversary can kill you if they really wish to, see the nuclear physicists of Iran, killed in Iran.

I give you that, if you run QubesOS on a machine with a vulnerable ME, you may be vulnerable to a magic packet attack. Yet none of the disassembled BIOS dumps revealed any occurrence of such code, and I will qualify this statement with “at least in Lenovo’s BIOSes”. There exist vulnerabilities caused by stupidity, like using that free TCP/IP stack from the '90, which everybody used and didn’t care to check. But there are moderately easy ways around this too, from “never connect WiFi” to “always connect through a firewall chain which drops illegal TCP packets” and “never use IP-in-IP or other stupid Cisco hacks”.

In conclusion, I perceive the Qubes warning as fair. Qubes cannot stop you from using “password1” as your disk encryption password either, and this is a greater risk than ME.

1 Like
55

This is a technical forum and such statements without any technical details do not belong here.

2 Likes
56

I tried to say the same thing, with more words and a softer delivery… :feather:

1 Like
57

How do you know that?

Then that person would have poor reading comprehension, as the warning does not say that at all. The warning makes no guarantees about what Qubes OS can or will do. It only points out a limitation of Qubes OS.

Here again is the warning text:

Warning: Qubes has no control over what happens on your computer before you install it. No software can provide security if it is installed on compromised hardware. Do not install Qubes on a computer you don’t trust. See installation security for more information.

Please point out the part that is misleading or incorrect.

58

(tried to delete my reply, but couldn’t see how)

59

Technically it is perfectly correct. However, I don’t think I’m the only one who would read into this that Qubes will provide protection from hardware being compromised, especially remotely.

I really do think a target person could be endangered by a false sense of security. I was not trying to nitpick or be condescending.

60

Based on experiences I am not comfortable discussing.

Obviously, I cannot expect anyone to believe me based on such a statement.

61

Okay, I understand. If you have some better language in mind or would like to propose an amendment to the existing wording, please have a look here:

The documentation is a collaborative volunteer effort, and all positive contributions from the community are welcome! :slight_smile: