198
Google pays $250K for Linux vulnerability allowing guest VM escapes
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2026
198 points (98.1% liked)
Selfhosted
60623 readers
1269 users here now
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil.
-
No spam.
-
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
-
Submission headline should match the article title.
-
No trolling.
-
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.
-
AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Linux's "security through obscurity" was never going to last.
Edit: it's a common concept in hacking. Shorthand for a type of security through improbability.
I lost braincells reading this. The entire point of open source software is to have it visible and auditable, aka the exact opposite of security through obscurity.
If you want to bash OS's for relying on STO, go after iOS and Windows. Those OS's, being closed source, are the ones relying on it
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I don't know where you got the notion from that Linux as a whole uses this concept, but it's nonsense. There's exactly one place where this definition fits, which is the GRUB bootloader encryption (which merely shifts the target for the Evil Maid attack from the initramfs to GRUB). But this is already adressed with Verified Boot.
Nothing else, let it be LUKS, PAM, SELinux, AppArmor or whatever has any business with STO.
From the fact it used to have to smallest user base of the big three. Less users = less probability of a nefarious person.
It's really not that difficult a concept. I'm surprised people here are asking what it is.
That doesn't make any sense as argument no matter how you spin it. Linux is the dominant system for servers for decades now, and a Debian Desktop is quite literally the same as Debian on a server except it also got a GUI of your choice slapped on top. There's absolutely nothing obscure about it, neither did anyone from the kernel team (Linux), FSF (GNU utils) nor IBM / Red Hat (systemd & honestly way too much other stuff) etc. ever design something around STO. That's a domain firmly situated in proprietary code since for FOSS it doesn't make sense to begin with. The false errand of GRUB is the sole exception, well known and solved.
The desktop market share says absolutely nothing about what you're trying to argue. Now if you were to argue that Linux is lacking in terms of desktop software isolation then you'd have a point, things like Flatpak still are addressing lots of issues. But to say "Linux" approaches security with obscurity is total nonsense.
Security through obscurity in OSS lol
There was never an actual notion of "security through obscurity". LInux runs the complete Internet and most coporate server infrastructure. That's where the actual money is.
People hallucinating that Linux is something obscure simply have no clue and confused their home desktop for real computing. Windows desktops are constantly targeted not because they are -unlike Linux- so wide-spread but because they are already insanely insecure. They are the low hanging fruit where you can cobble together some cheap shit and will still find million of PCs vulnerable. If you want to find a Linux comparison it's definitely not server or desktops but cheap IoT devices not having seen an update (or any security to speak of) for many years.
For reference: We are talking about guests in a virtual pc escaping it's container. That's not something obcure. That's basically all cloud hoster's whole business model, thus the reason Google pays a lot of money for finding such exploits.
Windows desktops are targeted because any place you have a user, you have a vulnerability. The vast majority of Linux installs are servers with extremely limited user activity, which narrows the attack vectors significantly.
In any system, the human is usually the weakest link.
You could have just said that you don't know what "security through obscurity" is.
You are right. I don't know what your personal definition of "security through obscurity" is as it's very obviously not matching actual reality.
Just google the term next time rather than embarrassing yourself.
Yes, please do.
The actual notion of "security through obscurity" (that will surely come up on Google if their AI bullshittery hasn't screwed up completely...) for Linux is insane because open source is the polar opposite. By that definition proprietary code is actually much more linked to the concept.
The often more unprecise and colloquial usage I thus assumed you were using doesn't apply either, for the reasons I summarised.
So which imaginary definition of "security through obscurity" are you using and assuming that it will come up on Google when none of the real ones makes any sense?
OMG.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity
You don't know what you're talking about - please stop. It's embarrassing. It's a long-standing industry term not some weird phrase I just made up. Nobody is saying "Linux is obscure".
Security through what now?
Well, I guess it is obscure... Though only because the number of people who have a full grasp on how the code works is highly limited.
The self-hosted crowd thinks reverse proxies protect you from the Internet. Don't expect too much of them.
The selfhosted guys are correct with that. Of course its not a magic pill, but it can help to minimize the attack surface immensely with little effort.
Edit: while open ports can easily be enumerated, a reverse proxy often requires knowledge of the right server name. In tls1.3 those are not transferred in clear. Depending on your thread scenario you might want to consider doh/dot etc.
Reverse proxies can require client certs, which lift the security benefit to something like a vpn. Even basic auth adds a high threshold to attackers and is simple even for random users to work with. All this is functionality many services don't offer natively - as they assume a reverse proxy anyway I guess.
See what I mean?
As if a proxy blindly passing traffic directly to a backend server "reduces attack surface" in any meaningful way. ๐
Edit: Guy edits his post with a bunch of stuff and assumes I've read it later. I can't eyeroll enough...
Did you just add 'blindly passing traffic' to your statement? Did you read my comment about can help?
Move on, joker.
Sorry - which part of your comment added anything of value? "can help to minimize the attack surface"? 99% of the time a proxy just passes traffic through. Unless you're talking about a WAF which is a) a different thing and b) NOT what any home gamers are talking about when they recommend nginx, traefik, etc. to newbs.
Lol
Enjoy your "security". ๐
You can't be real ๐ best laugh I've had in a while. Thanks for that.
You are right about that a reverse proxy does not protect. But I can not relate that with security through obscurity.