Little Snitch is one of the best pieces of software out there. It’s essential for every macOS user, works very well, and is a one-time payment. I truly hope it stays that way and doesn’t go down the same path as 1Password. I’m very grateful to the developers for creating such an excellent product. I wish more software were like this.
The UI is Electron, especially on Linux as it was the move to Electron that allowed them to do a Linux port. The data layer is all Rust and shared widely across their ecosystem as I understand it.
Honestly the whole UI thing was overblown. It's a great Electron app, and their macOS app was always a little iffy (old AppKit oddities). The port unlocked: Linux, a fully featured Windows client, noticeably faster improvements (Watchtower, family sharing, improved SSH and CLI support), and seems to have allowed for much better apps on iOS and Android, all at likely no user cost.
I think they’re referring to the forced changeover to cloud hosting and subscription services.
For years you could buy 1Password and then store your vault on your own syncing service like Dropbox. You owned the software and controlled your data. Then they switched to subscription-only and forced you to use their cloud. Really changed the nature of their software for many of us.
Well technically it's like a "subscription with indeterminate renewal cycle". Every few years they release a new major version and sometimes you have to pay to upgrade.
Of course you can choose to not upgrade... but then you don't get the new features, and it's unclear if the old version will support all newer macOS releases.
> Then every 3 years or so you spent $300 again to get the updated version. It was a much better system!
By your math it was. 10x12x3=360 > 300. Subscriptions cost more than buying the actual software. Why do you think most companies switched to a subscription model?
It was a better system, because if I didn't need the new features, I could keep using the version of Microsoft Word that I bought 15 years prior. That's why they stopped selling it that way.
Apples and ladybugs are both red but (I imagine) they taste quite differently. Which one you should use probably depends on whether you’re baking a pie or dealing with pests in your garden.
Declaring them equal based on a single metric like color would be as silly as suggesting subscriptions and purchases are the same because their costs over an arbitrary period of time are roughly similar.
Even if the price is the same, "old" distribution models have benefits. If you're satisfied with your current version and it still works, no need to continue paying. If you maintain older systems, your software still works without continuing to pay in perpetuity.
I much prefer buying software licenses outright than renting them forever.
You’re not wrong, with a lot of Mac apps (this one included) you need the latest version to use it with the latest macOS release.
When there’s a new mandatory paid upgrade every couple years then it’s not far from a subscription service.
The situation seems worse on Mac where software has much shorter lifespans without new releases. On Windows I’m still using some engineering software I bought over a decade ago and it’s like nothing ever changed.
There have been roughly 18 major macOS releases since Little Snitch was released.
In that time, there have been 6 major versions of Little Snitch.
macOS has undergone pretty major architectural changes during that time, necessitating mandatory upgrades under some circumstances, but an OS update does not always force a LS upgrade.
> When there’s a new mandatory paid upgrade every couple years then it’s not far from a subscription service.
I disagree and don’t think people should mentally model subscriptions this way.
Subscriptions almost universally cost more on average than standalone purchases did, and there are still situations where it’s possible to remain on old versions in perpetuity, e.g. and old Mac that is kept around for a specific purpose but no longer receives major OS updates.
I think both models fall under a larger overarching umbrella of “software maintenance costs”, but those costs have always existed and standalone purchases vs. subscriptions are two fairly different ways of covering those costs.
Agree that this all feels worse on macOS due to the regular updates, but unlike Windows, I actually feel better over time about privacy/security and this naturally forces more app updates across the board. Microsoft’s commitment to backward compatibility is both convenient and increasingly a liability.
Is it? I'm interested in hearing why. I've been using macOS for ~15 years, so very familiar with Little Snitch. I think I owned a version many years ago but haven't for a long time. I don't really see what I'd use it for. I don't run dodgy software, I don't want to partially break the software I do run by nit picking what connections it can make as that wouldn't improve my experience and would most likely cause issues. I also mostly trust Apple's anti-malware efforts to protect me from other software I don't want to run, but if I didn't I'd run better anti-malware software before a firewall.
What exactly does one learn from this normally? A leftover daemon is a bit of an edge case, and you could have learnt the same from looking at Activity Monitor, seeing a permissions pop-up, noticing higher energy use, etc, but learning that software connects to China seems... fine? Unless one wants to classify all connections to China as by-definition bad, which is discrimination that I don't want to engage in personally.
A bad actor can conceal whatever they want by renting a server anywhere they like. Meanwhile, there are many legit reasons why software might connect to China – maybe the company hosts services on Alibaba Cloud, maybe the software is from a Chinese producer and they chose local hosting.
I owned several versions of Little Snitch too. It started to be annoying when you had to approve each request, especially when running command-line scripts. Then I moved to run in silent-approval mode. At that point, there was no reason to have LS any longer, so I uninstalled it. Haven't used it in years now. But not to discredit LS, it is an amazing software when you need it.
> But not to discredit LS, it is an amazing software when you need it.
Yes! I perhaps didn't make this as clear as I should have. Little Snitch is fantastic software, no question. I'm just not sure that most people need it, I think a custom local firewall was always a bit of a power user tool, and nowadays with security being so much better than 20+ years ago, firewalls on personal machines just feel like an outdated concept to me.
LS is beyond annoying for the first couple of days on a new computer. "Do you want to connect to gmail.com on port 443? What about kagi.com on port 443? What about your employer on port 443? Mind if Weather.app checks the weather?" After a couple of days, I have blanket rules like "allow Safari to connect to any host :443, except for googleadservices.com because nah".
It quickly tapers down to alerting about rare new connections, which is when it becomes hugely useful. RandomTool.app normally connects to cloud.randomtool.xyz. Why is it suddenly asking to connect to exfiltrate.ru?
I have grown weary of little snitch annoying me all the time but it was insightful about how much stuff Apple has me pinging by default: like yahoo.com for weather on boot just to name one.
This kind of angered me, I don’t want yahoo getting my ip anywhere I am in the world any time I turn on my computer. I think I found like 4-5 things that are baked into a clean Mac install these days that I took exception to and forbade.
Then Microsoft office and adobe are evil and constantly evading it and getting smacked down too.
Apple OSes maintain consistent connections to APNS (apple push notification service) using hardware-linked certificates, exposing your unique system and IP address (and thus city-level location) to Apple at all times.
I caught a python ml library phoning home to a chinese server on a project that my company was building. My developer had no idea it was happening but I caught it first run thanks to lil snitch. If deployed this would've been a security escape that would need to be disclosed at a govt level.
Also, Apple. Their junk phones home just about everything you do. 50+ services constantly pinging Cupertino.
>I don't want to partially break the software I do run by nit picking what connections it can make as that wouldn't improve my experience and would most likely cause issues.
Partially breaking web pages by blocking all connections to ad servers does wonders for my experience.
If I had a penny for every time I've blocked a tracker and broken critical functionality in an app or on a website because of it, I'd be rich.
I'm sad that that's the case, but in almost all circumstances, the relatively minor tracking of my email signing up for a service going into some advertising ROI calculation is outweighed by the fact I get to use that service.
I did exaggerate a bit. Many users don’t care about where their connections are going and many users have only limited set of apps.
I wouldn’t mind like to correct myself and say “essential for me”. So many times I caught up software going to places where it should not go.
On top of that I often do local development without containers (guilty) and any random npm package can be compromised any time.
That probably depends on what you do with your computer.
If you regularly clone git repos and run code you didn’t write or run unsigned apps from untrusted developers, it’s probably a good idea to scrutinize the connections that code is making.
I own many more devices than just a Mac. I have an iPhone, Apple TV, Linux box, Windows PC, Nintendo Switch, Quest 2, Kindle. I'd prefer one piece of software that covers all of them over different software for each of them.
1. Sufficiently advanced routers that have such functionality are expensive and generally complex to manage
2. The reason tools like Little Snitch are valuable is they instantly indicate that a connection was attempted, indicate which binary/app attempted it, and allow you to decide whether or not to allow the connection in realtime
Being able to associate a specific action you’re taking (e.g. clicking a button in a specific app) with a specific network request isn’t really feasible when the device keeping track is not the device you’re currently using.
It’s significantly harder to retroactively analyze connections once you’ve completely lost the context of what initiated the connection.
The only way to make a centralized device achieve the same thing is to institute a default-deny policy, but carefully allowing only the connections you want becomes tedious and quickly leads to just giving up for practical reasons.
It’s an HN “read the room” submission. It’s contextually related to earlier discussion about Apple Photos phoning home without a direct reference to it.
I'm pretty sure the only reason it works on macos at all was that it got in early. I believe Apple periodically tries to hobble it but there is pushback.
I feel like macOS has been going the direction of iOS, increasingly locking things down and pushing to a walled garden world. What’s the chance that the next major update or two make changes that prevent utilities from having the access they need to provide these power user capabilities?
There are actually two default firewalls. The firewall that's configurable in UI can only block inbound connections but not outbound connections. The other firewall (pf) doesn't have the concept of application so one cannot allow one app to access a remote IP but block another, and I also don't think it supports DNS.
As others have indicated, LuLu (like Little Snitch) notifies you when your machine is initiating an outbound connection and lets you grant or deny permission, and to set up a persistent rule for that app/connection.
It's by far the most common phrase I've heard used to wipe+reinstall a system in the past 20 years? 25 years? Not just the most popular colloquialism, the most popular phrase, period.
My experience is US/West Coast/Tech companies, for reference.
I’ve spent 20+ years in tech in roles ranging from IT to engineering at west coast and midwest companies and this thread is the first time I’ve heard “nuke and pave”.
At the places I’ve been, systems got “wiped” or “re-imaged” most commonly. I suspect this terminology is hyper local.
I've worked in tech in the Bay Area for 30 years, started in IT at UC Berkeley and then at Sendmail. Never heard this term before. We always "wiped and re-imaged".
Probably because it is a leftover from the 1990s/2000s when you had to completely reinstall your os. That’s no longer necessary, as long as you’re not using windows.
"Will Little Snitch be available for iOS, tvOS and watchOS?
Unfortunately Apple's regulations and submission guidelines do not allow applications like Little Snitch that operate on the system level on the iOS (iPhone, iPad, iPod touch), tvOS (Apple TV), or watchOS (Apple Watch) platforms."
It appears Apple's "regulations" prohibit owner control and increased transparency. No such thing as an option for "experts only" when it comes to Apple computer owners; one size fits all. Apple are the only experts and the only ones entitled to control and transparency, over and into _other peoples'_ computers. Remarkable.
I love this product! It is a must-have app on macOS!
pro: you can literally control all Application Networks on your computer (sometimes it is funny to see completely off-line apps that don't need to collect any data trying to sync a bunch of stuff).
cons: it can be annoying when you install new apps and running it on with most secure options.
LS is excellent but if I'm going to go to the trouble of building firewall rules I'd rather them be at the network level so all my devices can benefit.
What would be really cool is the LS UI but tied into something like pfsense for the actual filtering.
I’ve been using Little Snitch for ages. It been my go to on all my all new systems and they offer discounts on upgrades to new versions. Their support has been excellent the one time I needed it.
I have had it for years, and every once in a while, there's a red light flashing in my menubar, making me smile as one more tracker goes empty-handed today.
This kind of work, collecting meta-data, mediating queries, altering a relational database processing language, on a DNS server through a Matching Code ID on Little Snitch is freakishly effective at times.
Little Snitch is one of the best pieces of software out there. It’s essential for every macOS user, works very well, and is a one-time payment. I truly hope it stays that way and doesn’t go down the same path as 1Password. I’m very grateful to the developers for creating such an excellent product. I wish more software were like this.
Whats wrong with 1password?
I assume its switch to subscription payments
A few years ago, 1password became an electron app - and the Internet seemed to lose its mind when that happened.
I think it’s native (rust) on Linux. The OP is probably referring to subscription and dropping support for syncing via. Dropbox.
The UI is Electron, especially on Linux as it was the move to Electron that allowed them to do a Linux port. The data layer is all Rust and shared widely across their ecosystem as I understand it.
Honestly the whole UI thing was overblown. It's a great Electron app, and their macOS app was always a little iffy (old AppKit oddities). The port unlocked: Linux, a fully featured Windows client, noticeably faster improvements (Watchtower, family sharing, improved SSH and CLI support), and seems to have allowed for much better apps on iOS and Android, all at likely no user cost.
I think they’re referring to the forced changeover to cloud hosting and subscription services.
For years you could buy 1Password and then store your vault on your own syncing service like Dropbox. You owned the software and controlled your data. Then they switched to subscription-only and forced you to use their cloud. Really changed the nature of their software for many of us.
It switched from being a product that you can buy, to a service to which you must subscribe in perpetuity.
AKA IAP subscription cancer
> and is a one-time payment
Well technically it's like a "subscription with indeterminate renewal cycle". Every few years they release a new major version and sometimes you have to pay to upgrade.
Of course you can choose to not upgrade... but then you don't get the new features, and it's unclear if the old version will support all newer macOS releases.
Technically that's what we call "buying software".
> Technically that's what we call "buying software".
What a novel idea. You mean once upon a time you didn’t have to pay a monthly racket for a piece of software you wanted..?
That's right. Rather than paying your $10/month 'racket', you simply paid $300 one time.
Then every 3 years or so you spent $300 again to get the updated version. It was a much better system!
/s
> Then every 3 years or so you spent $300 again to get the updated version. It was a much better system!
By your math it was. 10x12x3=360 > 300. Subscriptions cost more than buying the actual software. Why do you think most companies switched to a subscription model?
It was a better system, because if I didn't need the new features, I could keep using the version of Microsoft Word that I bought 15 years prior. That's why they stopped selling it that way.
Apples and ladybugs are both red but (I imagine) they taste quite differently. Which one you should use probably depends on whether you’re baking a pie or dealing with pests in your garden.
Declaring them equal based on a single metric like color would be as silly as suggesting subscriptions and purchases are the same because their costs over an arbitrary period of time are roughly similar.
it’s owning versus rent-seeking and this is a ridiculous hair to split
my owned software doesn’t abruptly stop working when I don’t pay my “rent”
Even if the price is the same, "old" distribution models have benefits. If you're satisfied with your current version and it still works, no need to continue paying. If you maintain older systems, your software still works without continuing to pay in perpetuity.
I much prefer buying software licenses outright than renting them forever.
You’re not wrong, with a lot of Mac apps (this one included) you need the latest version to use it with the latest macOS release.
When there’s a new mandatory paid upgrade every couple years then it’s not far from a subscription service.
The situation seems worse on Mac where software has much shorter lifespans without new releases. On Windows I’m still using some engineering software I bought over a decade ago and it’s like nothing ever changed.
There have been roughly 18 major macOS releases since Little Snitch was released.
In that time, there have been 6 major versions of Little Snitch.
macOS has undergone pretty major architectural changes during that time, necessitating mandatory upgrades under some circumstances, but an OS update does not always force a LS upgrade.
> When there’s a new mandatory paid upgrade every couple years then it’s not far from a subscription service.
I disagree and don’t think people should mentally model subscriptions this way.
Subscriptions almost universally cost more on average than standalone purchases did, and there are still situations where it’s possible to remain on old versions in perpetuity, e.g. and old Mac that is kept around for a specific purpose but no longer receives major OS updates.
I think both models fall under a larger overarching umbrella of “software maintenance costs”, but those costs have always existed and standalone purchases vs. subscriptions are two fairly different ways of covering those costs.
Agree that this all feels worse on macOS due to the regular updates, but unlike Windows, I actually feel better over time about privacy/security and this naturally forces more app updates across the board. Microsoft’s commitment to backward compatibility is both convenient and increasingly a liability.
> It’s essential for every macOS user
Is it? I'm interested in hearing why. I've been using macOS for ~15 years, so very familiar with Little Snitch. I think I owned a version many years ago but haven't for a long time. I don't really see what I'd use it for. I don't run dodgy software, I don't want to partially break the software I do run by nit picking what connections it can make as that wouldn't improve my experience and would most likely cause issues. I also mostly trust Apple's anti-malware efforts to protect me from other software I don't want to run, but if I didn't I'd run better anti-malware software before a firewall.
The best feature is the map which shows the locations of all the connection attempts.
You can quickly spot anomalous connections to countries/servers, and locate the specific process doing this.
I found a daemon left over from an uninstalled app which was attempting to connect to its mother ship in China. Very strange.
I mean renting us-east servers is not hard if you’re trying to conceal what you’re trying to do
Sure is nice for spotting the low hanging fruit though.
What exactly does one learn from this normally? A leftover daemon is a bit of an edge case, and you could have learnt the same from looking at Activity Monitor, seeing a permissions pop-up, noticing higher energy use, etc, but learning that software connects to China seems... fine? Unless one wants to classify all connections to China as by-definition bad, which is discrimination that I don't want to engage in personally.
A bad actor can conceal whatever they want by renting a server anywhere they like. Meanwhile, there are many legit reasons why software might connect to China – maybe the company hosts services on Alibaba Cloud, maybe the software is from a Chinese producer and they chose local hosting.
To me, the map is mostly fear-mongering.
You obviously know more about macOS internals than most people.
I don’t know how to monitor energy use, and if I have time, I will look it up.
For me, one app which not only notifies, also shows me where its connecting is a big advantage.
I owned several versions of Little Snitch too. It started to be annoying when you had to approve each request, especially when running command-line scripts. Then I moved to run in silent-approval mode. At that point, there was no reason to have LS any longer, so I uninstalled it. Haven't used it in years now. But not to discredit LS, it is an amazing software when you need it.
Which command line script are u using that much other than curl/npm etc..
Thanks.
> But not to discredit LS, it is an amazing software when you need it.
Yes! I perhaps didn't make this as clear as I should have. Little Snitch is fantastic software, no question. I'm just not sure that most people need it, I think a custom local firewall was always a bit of a power user tool, and nowadays with security being so much better than 20+ years ago, firewalls on personal machines just feel like an outdated concept to me.
LS is beyond annoying for the first couple of days on a new computer. "Do you want to connect to gmail.com on port 443? What about kagi.com on port 443? What about your employer on port 443? Mind if Weather.app checks the weather?" After a couple of days, I have blanket rules like "allow Safari to connect to any host :443, except for googleadservices.com because nah".
It quickly tapers down to alerting about rare new connections, which is when it becomes hugely useful. RandomTool.app normally connects to cloud.randomtool.xyz. Why is it suddenly asking to connect to exfiltrate.ru?
Analytics is malware and Little Snitch allows me to put the ban hammer on desktop apps that send data to places I don't want them to.
I have grown weary of little snitch annoying me all the time but it was insightful about how much stuff Apple has me pinging by default: like yahoo.com for weather on boot just to name one.
This kind of angered me, I don’t want yahoo getting my ip anywhere I am in the world any time I turn on my computer. I think I found like 4-5 things that are baked into a clean Mac install these days that I took exception to and forbade.
Then Microsoft office and adobe are evil and constantly evading it and getting smacked down too.
Apple OSes maintain consistent connections to APNS (apple push notification service) using hardware-linked certificates, exposing your unique system and IP address (and thus city-level location) to Apple at all times.
I caught a python ml library phoning home to a chinese server on a project that my company was building. My developer had no idea it was happening but I caught it first run thanks to lil snitch. If deployed this would've been a security escape that would need to be disclosed at a govt level.
Also, Apple. Their junk phones home just about everything you do. 50+ services constantly pinging Cupertino.
What was the library?
The exact reason that I use Deno is the sandbox, it will not run if something is calling an unknown endpoint.
“Junk phones”, lol. Gratuitous hate without any substance.
>I don't want to partially break the software I do run by nit picking what connections it can make as that wouldn't improve my experience and would most likely cause issues.
Partially breaking web pages by blocking all connections to ad servers does wonders for my experience.
> I don't run dodgy software
I was confident I didn't either, but Little Snitch has proven otherwise. The amount of 'instrumentation' in modern JS and Python libraries is insane.
The issues it causes are for nosy devs, not for the end user, generally speaking.
If I had a penny for every time I've blocked a tracker and broken critical functionality in an app or on a website because of it, I'd be rich.
I'm sad that that's the case, but in almost all circumstances, the relatively minor tracking of my email signing up for a service going into some advertising ROI calculation is outweighed by the fact I get to use that service.
I did exaggerate a bit. Many users don’t care about where their connections are going and many users have only limited set of apps.
I wouldn’t mind like to correct myself and say “essential for me”. So many times I caught up software going to places where it should not go. On top of that I often do local development without containers (guilty) and any random npm package can be compromised any time.
This is the absolute top of my wish list for software on iOS (impossible with Apple’s draconian restrictions though).
I'd expect that you could do something like this with the api that vpn software uses
> and is a one-time payment
I feel like I’ve done many one-time payments to get the new version of Little Snitch through the years.
I’m not currently using it, but for a long time it was on my list of Mac apps that I feared having to pay to upgrade with every new macOS release.
Paying for an upgrade to a new major version seems entirely reasonable and is the model I strongly prefer vs. ongoing subscriptions.
One time payment... per major version, and it may be required to pay again if you update your OS. Not as good sounding as 'one-time payment'...
I have it installed on my main Mac. But honestly I don't use it/don't know if it's doing anything. Should I be doing something?
That probably depends on what you do with your computer.
If you regularly clone git repos and run code you didn’t write or run unsigned apps from untrusted developers, it’s probably a good idea to scrutinize the connections that code is making.
oof I do. good point.
but even relatively established apps show connections to weird places.
Syncthing of all apps has made connections to 107 places.
I own many more devices than just a Mac. I have an iPhone, Apple TV, Linux box, Windows PC, Nintendo Switch, Quest 2, Kindle. I'd prefer one piece of software that covers all of them over different software for each of them.
This is unreasonable.
why? Isn't there some PI software or network router software I can use that will monitor all devices on my network and given me all the same info?
1. Sufficiently advanced routers that have such functionality are expensive and generally complex to manage
2. The reason tools like Little Snitch are valuable is they instantly indicate that a connection was attempted, indicate which binary/app attempted it, and allow you to decide whether or not to allow the connection in realtime
Being able to associate a specific action you’re taking (e.g. clicking a button in a specific app) with a specific network request isn’t really feasible when the device keeping track is not the device you’re currently using.
It’s significantly harder to retroactively analyze connections once you’ve completely lost the context of what initiated the connection.
The only way to make a centralized device achieve the same thing is to institute a default-deny policy, but carefully allowing only the connections you want becomes tedious and quickly leads to just giving up for practical reasons.
This is an application level firewall software. Applications are OS specific.
Little Snitch and similar programs let you manage connections per application.
You can’t do that outside of the device.
DNS filter is then your friend.
It's not a one-time payment. You pay for the current major version. You generally have to pay for the next major version.
In many cases, when a new macOS comes out, you must pay for the next major version if you want to continue running Little Snitch.
Not a gripe, just a clarification.
Nicety: If you buy a single user license, you can use it on multiple devices.
Firewalls and endpoint security are important, and Little Snitch is pretty good, but this feels like an ad being posted.
It’s just a link to the main page of their website: nothing specific to warrant discussion.
And it's a very old and well known software..
I used it years ago but did not know they added all these features. I enjoyed seeing this post here
It’s an HN “read the room” submission. It’s contextually related to earlier discussion about Apple Photos phoning home without a direct reference to it.
My understanding is that there were some issues with Apple often not allowing its own traffic to be filtered via firewalls on its systems.
See discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25109724
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37500237
If you want to monitor your own network I’ve heard good things about the pi-hole project
https://pi-hole.net/blog/2017/02/22/what-really-happens-on-y...
That’s long outdated information.
LS can easily block all Apple phone-home. (Some must be unblocked, specifically gs.apple.com, for UpdateBrainService, for OS updates to work.)
I have a few macs that don’t communicate with Apple at all except during system updates.
If little snitch worked on ios...
I'm pretty sure the only reason it works on macos at all was that it got in early. I believe Apple periodically tries to hobble it but there is pushback.
For those looking for a good, free firewall for macOS, consider LuLu.
https://objective-see.org/products/lulu.html
Other (paid) alternatives: Vallum, Radio Silence
- https://vallumfirewall.com
- https://radiosilenceapp.com
I feel like macOS has been going the direction of iOS, increasingly locking things down and pushing to a walled garden world. What’s the chance that the next major update or two make changes that prevent utilities from having the access they need to provide these power user capabilities?
Minimal, but there were some changes a few years ago that made it harder to monitor and block system traffic. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24838816
How would you compare these to little snitch?
Doesn't macOS also have a built in (but disabled by default) Firewall? Why does nobody use that?
The built-in firewall is only for incoming connections, not outgoing connections.
It only handles inbound connections.
There are actually two default firewalls. The firewall that's configurable in UI can only block inbound connections but not outbound connections. The other firewall (pf) doesn't have the concept of application so one cannot allow one app to access a remote IP but block another, and I also don't think it supports DNS.
As others have indicated, LuLu (like Little Snitch) notifies you when your machine is initiating an outbound connection and lets you grant or deny permission, and to set up a persistent rule for that app/connection.
Anyone using Linux can also try OpenSnitch, which is free to own: https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch
Netguard if you want to use it on Android https://netguard.me/
Another option for Linux (and Windows) is Portmaster. https://safing.io/
opensnitch is pretty good on a linux desktop, especially with its cool ebpf kernel interface.
mostly good for monitoring for malware though. doesn't replace good inbound firewall rules.
first application to get installed on every nuke and pave
Never heard of "nuke and pave" before, nice idiom! https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nuke_and_pave
It's by far the most common phrase I've heard used to wipe+reinstall a system in the past 20 years? 25 years? Not just the most popular colloquialism, the most popular phrase, period.
My experience is US/West Coast/Tech companies, for reference.
I’ve spent 20+ years in tech in roles ranging from IT to engineering at west coast and midwest companies and this thread is the first time I’ve heard “nuke and pave”.
At the places I’ve been, systems got “wiped” or “re-imaged” most commonly. I suspect this terminology is hyper local.
In IT (BBS's) since 1993 or so. Owned a computer store and an ISP. New Mexico. First time I've heard it as well.
I've worked in tech in the Bay Area for 30 years, started in IT at UC Berkeley and then at Sendmail. Never heard this term before. We always "wiped and re-imaged".
Probably because it is a leftover from the 1990s/2000s when you had to completely reinstall your os. That’s no longer necessary, as long as you’re not using windows.
Windows hasn't needed it either for a long time.
I've heard it said in relation to getting a new laptop with manufacturer cruft and using Dave's Boot And Nuke to do some cleanup: https://dban.org/
But where is Little Snitch for iOS. At least Android has NetGuard.
Firewalling applications is relatively easy on a general purpose computer. Where it becomes excessivelky difficult is on a so-called "smartphone".
https://www.obdev.at/support/littlesnitch/bm3q8
"Will Little Snitch be available for iOS, tvOS and watchOS?
Unfortunately Apple's regulations and submission guidelines do not allow applications like Little Snitch that operate on the system level on the iOS (iPhone, iPad, iPod touch), tvOS (Apple TV), or watchOS (Apple Watch) platforms."
It appears Apple's "regulations" prohibit owner control and increased transparency. No such thing as an option for "experts only" when it comes to Apple computer owners; one size fits all. Apple are the only experts and the only ones entitled to control and transparency, over and into _other peoples'_ computers. Remarkable.
I love this product! It is a must-have app on macOS! pro: you can literally control all Application Networks on your computer (sometimes it is funny to see completely off-line apps that don't need to collect any data trying to sync a bunch of stuff). cons: it can be annoying when you install new apps and running it on with most secure options.
How’s it compare to Objective See’s LuLu OSS https://github.com/objective-see/LuLu ?
same functionality but without fancy graphic and map interface https://sniffnet.net/
How is this the same if it says it doesn't support process id?
Can it ask you on new connection by a specific app whether to allow it like little snitch does?
I remember installing it on my work machine, and our IT Crowd demanded that I remove it.
They didn’t like that it exposed all their sneakware.
Arguably you’re the one installing sneakware on your employer’s machine.
Work machines and personal software/data and vice versa don’t mix well in many jobs.
This is true.
I didn’t argue with them, but kept using it on my personal kit.
I think it’s less useful, these days, as Apple is really battening down their I/O hatches. I know that Charles Proxy can miss stuff.
> I know that Charles Proxy can miss stuff.
It would miss anything not using macOS high-level HTTP or socket APIs, right?
If you're concerned about apps surreptitiously phoning home, I wouldn't count on them using those, or otherwise respecting the system proxy settings.
LS is excellent but if I'm going to go to the trouble of building firewall rules I'd rather them be at the network level so all my devices can benefit.
What would be really cool is the LS UI but tied into something like pfsense for the actual filtering.
I’ve been using Little Snitch for ages. It been my go to on all my all new systems and they offer discounts on upgrades to new versions. Their support has been excellent the one time I needed it.
I have had it for years, and every once in a while, there's a red light flashing in my menubar, making me smile as one more tracker goes empty-handed today.
For Windows I remember using the open source Portmaster for this, but noticed some apps and the OS lagging a bit on startup.
What’s the windows equivalent?
[SimpleWall](https://github.com/henrypp/simplewall)
Little snitch is great; I give it as a bd present to people.
Is there a similar solution that can run on openwrt
Little Snitch + DNS filter = greatness.
This is a great product!
See also: Patrick Wardle's excellent (and free) Lulu firewall: https://objective-see.org/products/lulu.html. He has a bunch of other excellent macOS security tools:
Rei Key - identify keyloggers: https://objective-see.org/products/reikey.html
Block Block - get an alert before an auto-start program gets registered: https://objective-see.org/products/blockblock.html
Oversight - identify when the mic or camera is active on your mac - https://objective-see.org/products/oversight.html
Ransomwhere - detect and block ransomware: https://objective-see.org/products/ransomwhere.html
This kind of work, collecting meta-data, mediating queries, altering a relational database processing language, on a DNS server through a Matching Code ID on Little Snitch is freakishly effective at times.