What distro/OS do glowies use?

*Glowies include but not limited to >CIA >FBI >GCHQ >FSB/KGB >GRU >Mossad So far I've seen the following claims (allegedly not just guesses): >antiX >QubesOS >BSD (which?)

FSB uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_Linux

Unironically they probably use windows 7

>>15128 Actually probably this. 3 letter agencies are like most other large corporations. Proprietary business software runs their life. I'm pretty sure Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple and intel all have GREAT working relationships with glowies. Shit this of how many infra orgs were hit from from the solarwind hack.

>>15130 Just go inside and check??

>>15128 Obviously not he same, but cracked me up to find from a friend who did some IT work for a local police district not too long ago that they had all their system, both an intranet and connected to the outside world, running on Windows XP. Decades of personal info, sensitive info, basic intel work, all of that there just up for grabs.

Police runs windows. Alphabet soup agencies don't. It's almost impossible to do forensics and almost every other thing on failblows. It would be great to actually know what big players like CIA use for themselves. If it's BSD then we could speculate about linux security and backdoors, especially for potentially illegal things.

One of the OpenBSD mirrors used to be an Estonian government agency, but it's gone now. (both the mirror and the domain, aso.ee) It can be still found in the web archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20150304112536/https://www.openbsd.org/ftp.html

Anything that has systemd or selinux.

>>15128 This, the vast majority of infrastructure is probably just windows xp, 7, and some linux distro that isnt very specialized and just lets them run in house programs.

My guess is they'd user something like RHEL.

IIRC most of the US government uses private government forks of Windows 7 and XP. Information/computing specialists probably use RHEL.

>>15146 This guy is correct. The US GOV, MIL and Intel communities use windows 7 with special patches from Microsoft. The NSA uses Windows 7 with a Kali variant as a VM. The broad government is standardized on W7, XP is rare at the federal level.

>>15126 Just installing the same software as A won't magically make you as secure as A.

>>15157 >won't magically make you as secure as That's where you're wrong

>>15128 >>15130 >>15139 >>15146 >>15155 Nice try CIA We know that glowies like you at least >use linux >have hardware without IME >have 0day exploits >use them Don't say a word to me about "police". Their job is not to fight "cybercrime" and spy on other governments. But when you go protesting again they will still use stingrays, who do you think makes them and writes software for them, windows users? Too naive. Literally thousand of people work for these agencies. If you really think everybody who isn't you and who you dislike is a click-click-click fool you. are. wrong.

>>15160 I'm pretty certain the OS that they use would be non-confidential, literally just ask.

>>15126 In my country they try to achieve "digital sovereignty" by replacing windows with FOSS os. For example cops have theyre own fork of Ubuntu: GendBuntu. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GendBuntu In higher spheres where they have to work with "sensitive data" they've built there own os, CLIP OS, some sort of Qubes os. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLIP_OS https://github.com/CLIPOS https://docs.clip-os.org/

>>15164 Based. I think they also started using [matrix] in France. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad one for the citizens though.

>>15165 At least they are not too shadowy, putting the source code on github and all.

>>15160 Fed is almost top to bottom privately forked Windows. Only a handful of people touch anything Linux related. The feds have their own spec for security called FIPS that everything has to comply with.

>>15167 Seriously, the entire government and military power of the united states would immediately collapse without powerpoint and excel

>>15158 Security doesn't mean anything without a threat model. If you don't understand the openbsd threat model and just install it hoping it will magically protect you from everything then you are just like 99% of clueless openbsd users

>>15175 Of course. Theory > practice. Obviously security doesn't mean a thing for security, only your tweets and your blogposts LARPing as a "security expert" do. Post your twitter account, I wanna read more of that bs. Maybe there you even ramble about what you think OpenBSD's threat model is, and after you start to actually do your research you realize OpenBSD protects from 95% of things it can protect you from but then neglect to change your conclusion from "OpenBSD is bad because I don't use it and it's not a buzzword, wrong threat model because it's not exactly what interests me in security" to "OpenBSD is the most secure OS you can install". A nice way to change the subject when you need to co
pe with using garbage software.

They use whichever one is on your computer.

>>15175 What is the other 1% of clueless openbsd users like? >>15177 This. Glowies own "your" computer.

>>15169 Sounds like a good plan.

>>15176 >Maybe there you even ramble about what you think OpenBSD's threat model is, It doesn't matter what I think it is. The question is do you know? Given how upset and defensive you are, it seems you've never even thought about it until now. The reason you think openbsd is just fairy dust you sprinkle on your computer and magically protects you from everything is because that's how the project markets itself. Here's the big bad inform though, nothing can protect you from everything equally. There are always tradeoffs. If you don't know what those tradeoffs are then that means someone else made them for you.

>>15185 >There are always tradeoffs. Not security tradeoffs. There are none in OpenBSD. This is different with other operating systems. >It doesn't matter what I think it is. The question is do you know? Wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't name at least one real issue with OpenBSD and that you just concluded OpenBSD is "not fairy dust" after reading the conclusions of madaidan and isopenbsdsecu.re without reading their arguments.

>>15185 >>15185 >no u Not a mod, but please cease the personal attacks. Separately, please elaborate on your takes of OpenBSD's threat model. I'm genuinely curious.

>>15191 >Not a mod, but please cease the personal attacks. What personal attacks? >Separately, please elaborate on your takes of OpenBSD's threat model. I'm genuinely curious. You heard him openbsd is 100% secure against everything. Why should I educate you if you're going to play the moral highground against me when >>15176 is the one going full ad hominem.

It was bait. >ad hominem You made no argument. I can't help but start guessing what it is.

>>15192 >>15191 speaking. I accidentally referenced your post twice, when I'd intended to reference both >>15185 and >>15176 (goddamn fuarrrking xclip ). To reiterate: >>15176 >>15185 What is OpenBSD's threat model, or where could I find a copy? I couldn't find it on their site. What are your takes on their threat model? Again, I'm genuinely curious.

>>15194 >ad hominem (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. >>15176 > Obviously security doesn't mean a thing for security, only your tweets and your blogposts LARPing as a "security expert" do. Post your twitter account >Maybe there you even ramble about $strawman >A nice way to change the subject when you need to co
pe with using garbage software. The whole post is attacking the poster and making up arguments he didn't say. Note how you get similar levels of rage and denial when you tell a religious person that god is not real. >how dare you suggest openbsd is not 100% secure from everything ever >>15196 >What is OpenBSD's threat model, or where could I find a copy? I couldn't find it on their site. What are your takes on their threat model? Again, I'm genuinely curious. Openbsd's implicit threat model is that the only way to be secure is to only run trusted code. They are violently anti-sandbox and anti-virtualization for most of the project's history. So in openbsd there is no equivalent jails or namespaces or zones or mandatory access controls or virtualization. All of which have existed in other operating systems for decades now. Even windows. That's openbsd's weak point. There's no real way to safely constrain what untrusted code can do. >muh pledge muh pledge muh pledge Pledge works at the source code level. You need to have the source code and a good understanding of what the code does in order to pledge it. It is a way for developers to make their own programs more secure. It is not a way for users to constrain what 3rd party programs can do. >muh vmm vmm is not done yet. It has no graphics or networking. But granted, vmm and unveil and pledge execpromises are signs that openbsd has accepted reality and is (finally) starting to move in the right direction. But it's not all there yet. And it's not like the old philosophy is just going to disappear overnight. Anyway this is not about openbsd. Any technology, where zealots tell you to install it and turn off your brain and it will magically secure you from 95% of attacks or whatever with no context or threat models, is worthy of ridicule. Especially on a /sec/ board.

>>15200 >Openbsd's implicit threat model is that the only way to be secure is to only run trusted code. They are violently anti-sandbox and anti-virtualization for most of the project's history. I think that's a somewhat unfair characterization of OpenBSD's philosophy. It's more that they consider the only guaranteed way to constrain processes is to run them on separate physical hardware. And sure, it's more expensive to do it that way. But it's as safe as you're going to get without an airgap.

>>15202 >I think that's a somewhat unfair characterization of OpenBSD's philosophy. How is it unfair? Until only a few years ago, anyone who brought up the topic of sandboxing or virtualization would just be flamed out of the openbsd mailing list by the developers. >they consider the only guaranteed way to constrain processes... But that's their threat model, not yours. And since they are now developing execpromise and vmm anyway clearly they were wrong.

>>15200 >implicit threat model They haven't published their threat model? >Any technology, where zealots tell you to install it and turn off your brain and it will magically secure you from 95% of attacks or whatever with no context or threat models, is worthy of ridicule. I absolutely agree, but this wasn't remotely my experience. Secure administration/configuration (among other things) are still essential and require time, knowledge, and constant vigilance. >>15204 >But that's their threat model, not yours. Then what's >>15202's threat model? Can you prove it differs? >>they consider the only guaranteed way to constrain processes... >And since they are now developing execpromise and vmm anyway clearly they were wrong. s/wrong/half-right/ . Dedicated per-process hardware and virtualization both make sense, though they aren't mutually exclusive options. Threat model permitting, I could choose to use both (defense in depth) or [i]neither[\i]. And you're right that OpenBSD's developers previously ignored virtualization, but isn't it more relevant that they've started to support it now?

>>15204 >How is it unfair? Until only a few years ago, anyone who brought up the topic of sandboxing or virtualization would just be flamed out of the openbsd mailing list by the developers. One can't be flamed out of a public mailing list. The reader not continuing to read the list is the reader's choice, not the other members of the list. If the reader can't handle the embarrassment of being properly ridiculed for needlessly restarting an old flamewar, that's all on the reader. There's etiquette for this sort of situation that goes back to the Usenet heydays. One needs to browse old topics, follow current topics, understand the matters being discussed. Get to know the culture, wait awhile before making a post. >But that's their threat model, not yours. I think you're making the classic imageboard mistake of assuming that all replies to you are from the same person. My only prior post in this thread is >>15202. >And since they are now developing execpromise and vmm anyway clearly they were wrong. Or maybe they think they found a safe way to do it that they couldn't do before. Or maybe they're in the wrong now. There are multiple possibilities. Personally I have no dog in the fight. I'll continue to ignore sandbox and container techniques (regardless of OS) and use separate hardware for processes that need to be kept truly isolated. Of course what others decide to do is up to them, I'm not on any sort of "my way is the only way" crusade.

>>15205 > this wasn't remotely my experience. What are you talking about, we all saw it in this thread >>15158 That's how obnoxious openbsd cultists post on every imageboard. They genuinely believe it. >Then what's >>15202's threat model? Like I said, he probably never thought about it before this thread. He genuinely thinks just having openbsd will somehow protect him from 95% of attacks >>15176 Whatever that means. >Can you prove it differs? Didn't I already do that? Dude didn't know his own threat model or openbsd's threat model so of course they are different. If you don't know what your system can and can't protect you from then you are not really secure you're just jumping around in the dark next to a cliff edge. >isn't it more relevant that they've started to support it now? No because openbsd is 15 years behind every other os and idiots like >>15158 are still as clueless and obnoxious as ever. That's a personal attack by the way.

>>15206 >I think you're making the classic imageboard mistake of assuming that all replies to you are from the same person You are making the classic imageboard mistake of jumping into someone else's discussion and then crying "I didn't say that why are you strawmanning me herp derp". >I'll continue to ignore sandbox and container techniques (regardless of OS) and use separate hardware for processes that need to be kept truly isolated. So ironically your threat model actually does fit openbsd well.

Slight variation on the OP: what threat models do glowies use? Obviously it differs from zone to zone and department to department, but any information's appreciated.

>>15155 The azure fabric is pretty much server 2008.

>>15209 > what threat models do glowies use? You can get an insight from things like selinux and trustedbsd. One of their primary concerns is making sure data is classified correctly and cannot read or exfiled by someone without the correct authorization and things like that. None of which really applies to us.

>>15214 MAC systems can prevent your web browser from reading ~/.ssh or cupsd from reading /home/*

>>15214 >write-only What?

>>15221 Secret can write to a Top Secret file but can't read it. Information flows upwards in the intelligence hierarchy. >>15220 Yes.

>>15126 Windows. Not joking. But it's a version of windows with some (unknown to me) modifications that MS does on contract for various agencies. The government spends a lot of money on MS to get MS to provide what are basically non-public "distros" of Windows for ATF/FBI/CIA/NSA.

>antiX Could you give source? Why would they use antiX?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.02707.pdf

>>15126 Ubuntu, just in air-gapped network with sanitized intranet APT repos https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_27262984.html

>What distro/OS do glowies use? In-house Linux distribution based off RHEL or SELinux. Babby will either be using Windows 10 or 7. If you're thinking of targeting intelligence agencies its not going to happen.

>>15155 >>15136 Windows is used by Donuts who don't give a crap about full on security/privacy. >>15128 >>15130 >>15231 Yes we also used that. (I'm using it right now on my public computer) >>15181 Losers like you is the reason why we don't take our job seriously. >>15126 Multiple Proprietary Loonix Distros. And yes we don't fuarrrking GLOW!

>>15126 Mossad uses TalmudOS; it's bretty gud for them because it allows them to write exceptions to key kernel rules, allowing them to circumvent placed restrictions. MI6 uses SausageOS, which is great for injecting viruses through the extensive cable network. Downsides are the insane focus on licensing that goes with it and that the Machine malfunctions when you spill TeaOS over it. The FEDS uses DonutOS, which is based on the Debian distribution. There were talks of implementing DebianDonut on all federal servers, be it not for ClownOS. The CIA uses ClownOS, which has a lot of pretty colours and is aesthetically pleasing if you're constantly high on drugs, which most of the key CIA people were. The FSB doesn't use linux and instead throws half-full vodka bottles at pictures of comrade Lenin.

>>15320 >pdf is there a tool that I can just run on my entire books/pdf directory, that sanitizes them (or ignores if no issues) without changing anything, making copies, or anything?

>>15414 Is this post essentially the glowie way of saying thread glows?

>>15126 >>15126 using something else than windows put yourself in the watchlist of " anarchist " same as terrorist list i got the info form a guy that made an internship in french intelligence. kinda belive that kind of soykaf because i was on one for retweeting to much leftist meme i ended in a big excel

Got some police computers from an auction recently, they were running ubuntu strangely.

>>15493 for what purpose

Very interesting watching unenlightened non glowies talk about what they think our superior glowing technology stack is. I will not divulge. Serve your country if you really want to know. also fuarrrk the FBI

>>15510 >Serve your country Read: Learn more ways why having a TLA in your threat model as an individual or small collective is borderline egotistic. Little "hacktivist" groups are only safe as long as the (domestic and foreign) IC doesn't give a fuarrrk. I may not know much, but I do know if you fuarrrk with the wrong organization, they will expend more resources to find you than you have as an individual to hide yourself. The soykaf that is possible nowadays is quite simply mindblowing, harrowing, and quite literally amazing. If you can't extrapolate just how much has improved since the conception of dragnet programs from 2002 exposed in 2015, idk what to tell you. tl;dr: It's not if you're attributed, it's when and how deep. It's funny how agencies and contractors absolutely bungle some basic things, yet are highly competent elsewhere.

> TLA > IC I can't quite guess what those expand to.

>>15522 >IC Intelligence community Don't know what the fuarrrk TLA is, probably a blue team term.

>>15523 TLA == Three Letter Acronym. Basically, any government agency, even if they don't use exactly three letters.

>>15494 NTA but I would assume because it's way cheaper and much less of a hassle for a small police department than running winblows. They probably do everything they need to do in a browser anyway.

Pentoo fuarrrk you the body of this post is not too short glitterboy

>>15519 They are humans too, even the best ones make errors. And all organizations run into a lot of problems when they have 50 members or more because communication becomes increasingly inefficient.

>>15588 But why pentoo of all things?

Wasn't FuzzBunch originally written for Windows? If the NSA are writing scripts for exploiting their own 0days for Windows we can probably guess that they use Windows.

>>15164 I think it is much more about the Gendarmerie being broke rather than "sovereignty". If that really was the primary reason then what a fuarrrking joke considering the last decades politics. As for the ANSSI and baguette glowies I dunno, but I'd say that's typical of us, always in the need of cocorico credits

>>15510 Youre not serving your country by digitally developing the ZOG's project to kill all White people. Dumb fuarrrk

>>15723 >Kill all white people Oh no!

>>15424 I was just poopposting (though I'm basically on all the watchlists, so perhaps that's why I glow) Btw, I forgot the CCCP, who uses NoodleOS; half-baked, half-arsed and many generations behind what's happening.

>>15723 You forget that there are people from non-white countries here as well and in our case it would actually count as serving our country, since it is in our best interest to kill them as well

>>15426 >i ended in a big excel pics or it didn't happen

>>15136 BSDs are more focused on security than Linux which essentially is just about getting more performance juice. Even Torvalds confirms this in an old quote >>15146 The private fork is usually for the lower end of the military stick I've heard on anonymous posts (in imageboards of course). Most government stuff anywhere in the world that handles recording of ID/documents uses XP with IE/VB for inputting into forms and generating reports (like SAP) so you can assume that all your personal information are already in the hands of someone else if you count the obvious backdoors (I assume to have been tailored for foreign countries for neutral purposes, at least it would be a good idea for someone out there to run inspection tools on such devices assuming they've not been wiped). It's a spook how massive the surveillance is everywhere, at least I assume in good faith they're trying to spy on non-human aliens or maybe it's all just to protect their various anti-human activities (since instead a lot of journalist end up dying in the most brutal way instead most of the time so the rabbit hole probably runs deeper).

the DoD policy requires MAC/ACL support so OpenBSD is not used. this is why they created SELinux.

As of 2013, the US Army's Blue Force Tracker was runing on Windows XP. The BFT is the real time map and message sys in the onboard comps of all Army ground vehicles. I've been out since then, but I'd bet it's still in use.

>>15787 >BSDs are more focused on security Just because an OS is strange and exotic (to you) doesn't mean it's more secure. The only project that claims to prioritize security is OpenBSD. And a claim don't necessarily make it effective.

>>15155 You’re fuarrrking retarded. The entire USG has been mandated to use updated Win10 etc for years. Have you ever heard of NIST? I won’t comment on what we used for ops but what you and the guy you’re replying to are saying is fuarrrking stupid. Do you current work in an NSA billet? If so are you just saying this as disinformation?

old nsa os called hobbit this was in the 90s

>>15510 >Serve your country. You mean that thing that's almost always fundamentally incompatible with serving your state?

>>15136 >Police runs windows. Alphabet soup agencies don't >It would be great to actually know what big players like CIA use for themselves Okay so you know what they DON'T use but you don't know what they use? You obviously don't know what the fuarrrk you're talking about. Every single US government agency uses Windows as their daily driver. What an individual office or employee uses for certain tasks or tools is a different story. Other Lainons should look at this post and know that this is why you should approach advice/information on these boards with skepticism.

idk if anyone has pointed this out in the thread but the question is redundant because da gubbunmint founded, funded, and runs the universities which developed 'computer science' in the first place. it is all on their terms, the whole playing field is them-created. you're sending messages over a war machine designed to track and surveil you. everything you touch from the microchip to the network stack is By Them so asking which operating system they use is like asking what kind of bullet casing the shell that killed you had on before it left the chamber.

>>15126 NSA uses Windows at least. sauce: GPG for journalists video that Edward Snowden made for Glenn Greenwald btw, can someone tell me what programs he has on his task bar in picrel? One looks like some Russian knockoff of hexchat.

It's not a big one but the BLM used Windows. Im just going by memory because I dont want to have to ask a family member who worked for the BLM.

>>17492 You mean the Xchat? http://xchat.org/ ?

>HexChat is an Internet Relay Chat client that forked from XChat. kids these days... >>17432 u wish there was an actual them in this mess of a world.

>>17492 >1280 720 looks like a VM

>>15126 I imagine they probably roll their own distros for BSD/*nix

Microsoft Windows 10 Redhat Ubuntu CentOS Any kind of proprietary fork of Debian or Ubuntu

>>15190 openbsd is like magic i love it, it just works but. it is SLOW

>>15510 >TAO day 0s are a stack top kek 'humint' analytics PDF developer detected James Bonds use that antiX hotsauce and grinpost daily

I have seen something like Qubes a long time ago but for servers based on Solaris, I can't say what it was because it may still be classified but that's why I love Qubes so much.

>>15126 windows mac Most of them are real human beans

Can't speak for the feds, but on the contracting side a mix of Windows 10, Ubuntu, Red Hat covers 99% of use-cases.