Kali Linux is an open-source, Debian-based Linux distribution geared towards various information security tasks, such as Penetration Testing, Security Research, Computer Forensics and Reverse Engineering.

  • N.E.P.T.R@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    It isn’t a secure operating system. It is a toolkit for pen testing and red team hackers. Definitely not a daily driver kind of OS.

      • teije9@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        it’s not secure by design, since it’s not made to be secure, and also uses unstable versions of a lot of packages to make certain exploits work

      • N.E.P.T.R@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        What do you mean secure by design? What part of it is secure. Compare it to actually security focused Linux operating systems like QubesOS, Kicksecure, or Secureblue. Literally any OS that supports the Brace tool (made by the creator of DivestOS) is much more secure than Kali Linux. Kali is purpose built for red team work, not being secure (aka reducing attack surface or designing around a threat model).

        • Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Kali is secure as in once it’s configured, it cannot be accessed without creds, keys etc. That meets the definition of ‘secure’. It’s just Linux with a bunch of pre installed packages.

          Of course something can always be more secure. But saying Kali isn’t secure is like me saying your PC isn’t secure because it isn’t air gapped like my most secure PC.

          • N.E.P.T.R@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            PCs aren’t secure. Linux default isnt secure. Kali has so many apps/tools installed by default that it isnt comparable to default Linux. It has massive attack surface and no security design, therefore calling it secure isn’t accurate.

            If no effort was put into the security design of an OS, why call it secure?

            • Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Okay if I turned off password auth, just used keys, disabled the Kali user and root login, how are you breaking in? Where’s the vulnerability? Which cve or cwe are you able to exploit?

              A large attack surface doesn’t mean insecure. It just means less secure.

              Source: I literally pentest for a living. No, I don’t even use Kali on a regular basis.

              • N.E.P.T.R@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                My point exactly. A large attack surface means less secure. My point was that Kali isn’t focused on being a secure OS. It is all about the tools. Even without a vulnerability, a secure OS should protect against unknowns.

                  • N.E.P.T.R@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 day ago

                    I am not a troll. You don’t need to be an ass.

                    Just because a system doesnt have a CVE doesn’t make it secure. It needs proper exploit mitigations. Read why Linux isn’t secure here.. The article is written by the lead developer of Whonix OS (Security hardened Debian with a focus on anonymity). If you had checked out any of the references from my previous comments you would have learned more about why I have this opinion.

                    Kali isn’t any more secure than regular Debian, while also having a larger attack surface, and no kernel hardening, protecting of GUI, or application isolation. What makes it “secure”?

      • N.E.P.T.R@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        You mention “sane defaults”. That might mislead someone because it is ambiguous. The terminal defaults used to default to a root prompt, exemplifying that it isn’t a distro focused on sane defaults for a desktop distro.

        Kali is a tool for a specific job. Its meant mostly for hacking or troubleshooting/analysis, being an OS for executing a collection CLI/TUI and GUI utils.

        -Edited everything to make myself more intelligible.