Tinfoil Hat Linux: A Distribution for the Paranoid

An Anonymous Coward writes: " Tinfoil Hat Linux is a distribution designed to allow the signing and encrypting of documents with the utmost in security. The floppy-image has numerous security features including: entering your passphrase via a video game style selection process to combat hardware keystroke loggers, turning the contrast of your screen down to foil prying eyes and cameras, and to run background PGP processes."

Comments

If *I* were the Illuminati

[BranMan]

I'd just put the spy code in the Bios. What else is distributed on every computer, and run every time they boot?

BWAHAAAAAHAAAA

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

[corebreech]

The tinfoil hat only serves to deliver a false sense of security.

To be truly secure, you need to build your own distribution. You need to understand what is being put on your system, and why. You need to be able to verify that the program that says it edits streams really does that, and does it without any funny business.

I ***know*** what it running on my system. I know this because I built the binaries myself. I know this because I can look at the source code and see what it does. This is the most beautiful feature of open source; the ability to let tinfoil hat wearers like myself have near-total assurance that our systems are running only the code we want them to run.

You don't get to say that if you're running Red Hat or Suse, or Windows or Mac. How do you know that any of these companies haven't been approached by the Feds and forced to include code that compromises your security and privacy?

Admittedly, it's going to be some time before I get to running KDE or Gnome. Of course, I can always install a standard distribution and see what is available today. But I appreciate the ability not to have to trust one of these distributions with my personal data, or my source code.

Actually, I'm still not to the point where I can run XFree86 yet, but EMACS using SVGATextMode on new hardware is so obscenely fast, why should I care? Except when I want to look at naked women.

That's why I have a Mac.

Re:http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

[Ratbert42]

But how did you build your binaries? You really should read this before you trust a compiler that you didn't bootstrap yourself.

Re:http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

[corebreech]

Note that I said "near-total assurance".

I have a lot of faith in you guys, even though I realize that when the gcc source is broadcast that not everybody reads through every single expression.

But we're all single-stepping through the code it produces at some point.

I've seen people reporting compiler bugs that makes you wonder just what the fuck these people are doing. When you read the back-and-forth between the people who use the compilers and those who write them it's pretty clear who's on top.

Plus, there's Codewarrior, and Borland (is that right?) and there's always the archived compilers to compare against.

In short, it's all out there in the open, and there are like at least ten million eyeballs on the case.

I'm willing to risk letting the compiler prove me to be the fool.

Even easier: LCD (was: Tempest fonts)

[dstone]

Operator: Main LCD turn on
Cat: All my fonts are not belong to Tempest
Captain: What you say!!
Captain: You know what you doing