{{Header}}
{{#seo:
|description=List of notable reviews and feedback about the security of {{project name}}.
|image=https://www.whonix.org/w/images/a/a0/Reviews.png
}}

This is a list of notable reviews and feedback about the security of {{project name}}.

See also [[Security_in_Real_World|{{project name}} Protection against Real World Attacks]].

== Reviews ==
* https://corelight.blog/2019/07/18/profiling-whonix/
* Not an audit of {{project name}} but an audit of software which is based on {{project name}}: ”[https://securedrop.org/ SecureDrop] Journalist Workstation [https://github.com/freedomofpress/securedrop-workstation environment for submission handling] is based on Qubes-Whonix.”, [https://securedrop.org/news/third-party-audit-integrated-securedrop-workstation-completed/ Third party audit of integrated SecureDrop Workstation completed]
* [https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2012-March/023531.html cursory check of TorBOX by creator of JanusVM] (TorBOX was later renamed to {{project name}}.)
* [https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/2108#issuecomment-228379491 Quote] rustybird, author of [https://github.com/rustybird/corridor corridor, a Tor traffic whitelisting gateway]

<blockquote>
Happy to report no leaks observed, ever.
</blockquote>

== Discussions ==
There are [https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2012-March/subject.html#23489 a few older threads] on the Tor Talk Mailing List about the security of {{project name}} / transparent proxy.

* [tor-talk] Operating system updates / software installation behind Tor Transparent Proxy"
* [tor-talk] Obtain real IP behind Tor transparent proxy; was: Operating system updates / software installation behind Tor Transparent Proxy
* [tor-talk] Risk with transparent proxy mode [was Re:Operating system updates / software installation behind Tor Transparent Proxy] - Summary: coderman (developer of TorVM / JanusVM) had some concerns, which could be cleared. "Looks fine from a cursory check."
* Older places of people talking about {{project name}}
** A section to collect everyone discussing {{project name}} anywhere. It is nice to see what people think and say about {{project_name}}. If they don't give feedback directly, we still have a secondary feedback source. Most links are found through googeling "TorBOX" or "https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorBOX".
** [https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorBOX/Dev/ArchivedDiscussion/QUESTIONS Dev/ArchivedDiscussion/QUESTIONS]
** [https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=site%3Awilderssecurity.com+TorBOX {{project name}} on wilderssecurity.com]; few threads
** [http://ra.fnord.at/2011/05/easy-and-secure-anonymous-internet-usage/ ra's blog]; Search for "TorBOX that they have".; Negative feedback.
** LulzSec / AntiSecOp: [https://www.facebook.com/notes/lulzsec/want-to-be-a-ghost-on-the-internet/230293097062823?_fb_noscript=1 Want to be a ghost on the internet?] or google for 'Want to be a ghost on the internet?'; {{project name}} (TorBOX) is a part of their instructions.
** seclist.us: [http://www.seclist.us/2012/03/torbox-v-013-multi-vm-anonymity-setup.html {{project name}} V-0.1.3 - Multi-VM anonymity setup using Tor's Transparent Proxy]
* [http://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/comments/tyabf/torbox_critical_issue_help/ reddit] (This only applied to 0.1.3, was announced, workaround provided and fixed since 0.2.0)
* October 2012 - {{project name}} 0.4.5 release announcement
** [https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2012-October/025921.html on tor-talk Mailing List] - Summary: no answers.
** [http://lists.debian.org/debian-derivatives/2012/10/msg00007.html on debian-derivatives Mailing list] - Summary: Mentioned, that if VirtualBox gets exploited, it is game over. This is true and already mentioned in the [[Comparison with Others#Attacks|attack matrix]].
* October 2012 - Discussions:
** [http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=2122152#post2122152 Wilders Security Forum: Anonymous operating system {{project_name}}] - Summary: only questions, no concern.
** [https://tails.boum.org/forum/Are_hardware_serial_numbers_hidden_in_TAILS__63__/?updated#comment-36536cef25dd56a09043bc8bee85681e Are hardware serial numbers hidden in TAILS?]
** Qubes OS Mailing List: [https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/qubes-devel/aJGrmlkwO3M qubes vs whonix virtualization solution] - Summary: Qubes OS would be safer than VirtualBox. True. Other than that, no complaints.
** Qubes OS Mailing List: [https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/qubes-devel/aJGrmlkwO3M Whonix: VirtualBox vs Qubes OS] Summary: agreed, that Qubes OS would be safer than VirtualBox.
** [https://sourceforge.net/p/whonix/discussion/general/ OLD {{project name}} User Help Forum]

== Audit ==
None, but that doesn't mean anything. There is no audit of Tails, Liberté Linux, etc. either. At the time of writing there were no public published audits for Debian, Ubuntu, Qubes OS, etc. either.

We are not aware of any serious research about any of such distributions in [http://freehaven.net/anonbib/ anonbib]. No expert such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier Bruce Schneier] for cryptography exists for security-focused operating system review.

Audit is a word. But what does audit actually mean? Every audit that is being made has a previously defined, limited scope. There are no all-encompassing audits.

More food for thought on audits. As an example, has GNU wget been audited? What is an audit? Is it an professional company, providing software security audits as a service? Some kind of certification? There is no such entity in the Freedom Software Open Source ecosystem at time of writing. There are no quality seals for Linux distributions.

If you know examples, please get in contact or edit this section. Would it be reasonable to expect a reputable organization or individual making statements such as "GNU wget has been audited and no security vulnerabilities were found"? It usually happens the other way around. When someone reviews the source code and finds nothing wrong, nothing will be reported. On the other hand, if a vulnerability has been found, that's worth some fame. However, anyone who claimed beforehand to have found no security issues wouldn't get better reputation. On the contrary, look bad for previously making statements about not having found security issues.

If you make an audit, please edit this section or get in contact so it will be linked here.

== See Also ==
* [[Security_in_Real_World|{{project name}} Protection against Real World Attacks]]
* [[Media Mentions]]
* [[Dev/Leak_Tests|leak tests]]

{{Footer}}

[[Category:Design]]
