Should Whonix host be fully torified by default?

[HulaHoop]

@Patrick

This goes back to the question: what would users expect from a Whonix-Host? Does something called Whonix-Host generate the impression, that all VMs and all applications running on such a host are torified by default? I guess Should Whonix-Host have any features besides hosting Whonix VMs in a secure way? will tell.

Please call for comments in the thread in addition to a poll. We can get more information on what exactly users expect.

@Patrick

In that case users might shoot their own feet with a Kicksecure VM?
This is specifically bad since SecBrowser in Kicksecure is still branded as “Tor Browser” (as rebranding seems not possible in an easy, reliable way without recompilation which would be too much effort).

Its important to implement VM differentiation because of this. TO-DO research on window borders, desktop wallpapers and so on,

@Patrick

This would lead to confusion for sure if not gotten right. Tails renamed their captive portal solution Unsafe Browser to make that clear and then users still use it for all sorts of stuff.

I believe they were using vanilla Firefox as a unsafe browser base.

@Patrick

If Kicksecure doesn’t become an end-product for users then there’s little need for it. Was the idea behind Kicksecure. Debian based security (invented as “by-product” of Whonix development) but without focus on anonymity/privacy.

So here is what I mean by end product family tree:

Kicksecure base → Kicksecure VM
|
| -> Whonix VM
| -> Whonix Host
|
|-> Unistation Baremetal*

• Is to become its own separate thing with clearnet access and selective anonymity profiles (potentially VPN/I2P access thrown into the mix) on baremetal, using lightweight app sandboxing to do its thing.

If Unistation too complex with diminishing returns, go for a hardened vanilla baremetal Kicksecure and forget about the whole anonymity part.