4 ms·

Linux creator explains why a truly secure computing platform will never exist

26 points by rottyguy 11y ago

agwa 11y ago
Automotive security is such a terrible example for the security/usability tradeoff. Cars would be no less usable, but incredibly more secure, if they simply isolated the brakes on a separate CAN bus. Security/usability tradeoffs do exist, but it's not zero-sum. Linus seems to think it is, which is why Linux will never come close to being a truly secure computing platform.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
The thing is we haven't really been trying. Capability-based security is still an academic niche, thread-level parallelism never managed to take on instruction-level parallelism, high-level computer architectures barely receive interest anymore. System programming with a GC is considered anathema, and microkernels have been demonized (in no small part thanks to Torvalds himself). I don't know if a "truly secure computing platform" can exist, but one cannot derive assumptions from the current landscape.
- haberman 11y ago
  You might like https://sandstorm.io/ https://sandstorm.io/. Among other things it seeks to bring capability-based security to the mainstream.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    I'm aware of it. I know that Kenton Varda has spoke in support of capabilities before and I appreciate said viewpoint. I have not studied Sandstorm deep enough to know whether it's really a security tool. I'm under the impression that its main goal is to enable easy self-hosting of server-side applications.
    - haberman 11y ago
      > I have not studied Sandstorm deep enough to know whether it's really a security tool. I'm under the impression that its main goal is to enable easy self-hosting of server-side applications. Check out this: > Sandstorm is a security product. > We like to say that Sandstorm's priorities are Usability, Security, and Freedom. In public, we tend to talk more about usability and freedom, because those are the priorities users are most excited about. However, within the team, we are just as passionate -- if not more so -- about security. > Ultimately, our goal is that, to the maximum extent possible, users need not worry about security, because using the system intuitively will result in the desired security properties "by default". Moreover, we aim to allow network administrators to be able to say: "As long as it's on Sandstorm, you can run whatever apps you want, because we trust Sandstorm to keep things secure." https://docs.sandstorm.io/en/latest/using/security-practices/ https://docs.sandstorm.io/en/latest/using/security-practices...
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
Reading this on mobile, I accidentally tapped no less than three ads, having to then go back, close the bottom ad banner again and re-find my place. Ugh. This is why people use ad blockers.
- iokanuon 11y ago
  Even with just a simple hosts file, I can't see any ads on mobile. It's amazing that by just blocking domains we can archeive that. The web is awesomely flexible.
  - informatimago 11y ago
    Because happily so far they serve the ads from different hosts than the content. I worry for the day when they will serve from the same, and don't provide the contents until you fetched and displayed the ads.
jupiter2 11y ago
"Torvalds talked about security as something unattainable in a Perfect Sense". I would have been more curious to hear his response about Security in the Real Sense. Given what most current OSes are engaged in: surveillance, tracking, data-warehousing, data-sharing with untold/unnamed "trusted" partners, civil rights violations, illegal search/seizure, 5th amendment rights violations, etal... his answer skirts the issue entirely. I guess... what he was saying is that he's like Linux (The Kernel). To paraphrase him: He's an enabler. Perhaps an imp. Something totally hidden and out of people's mind when it comes to how OSes have been weaponized against people. He has no position on the matter.
digi_owl 11y ago
And the discussion descends into the exact kind of security absolutism that he was warning about...
- pointfree 11y ago
  With all due respect, Linus doesn't know everything. Lately he's been abusing his cult of personality to ultracrepidate on topics such as machine learning https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3ciqkl/linux_creator_linus_torvalds_laughs_at_the_ai/ https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3ciqkl/linux_c... and now provable security.
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    What i see is one guy giving his honest opinion during a public event. He does not bring up the topic, others do. But when they do, he gives an honest response.

26 points by rottyguy 11y ago

agwa 11y ago

Automotive security is such a terrible example for the security/usability tradeoff. Cars would be no less usable, but incredibly more secure, if they simply isolated the brakes on a separate CAN bus. Security/usability tradeoffs do exist, but it's not zero-sum. Linus seems to think it is, which is why Linux will never come close to being a truly secure computing platform.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

The thing is we haven't really been trying. Capability-based security is still an academic niche, thread-level parallelism never managed to take on instruction-level parallelism, high-level computer architectures barely receive interest anymore. System programming with a GC is considered anathema, and microkernels have been demonized (in no small part thanks to Torvalds himself). I don't know if a "truly secure computing platform" can exist, but one cannot derive assumptions from the current landscape.

haberman 11y ago
You might like https://sandstorm.io/ https://sandstorm.io/. Among other things it seeks to bring capability-based security to the mainstream.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  I'm aware of it. I know that Kenton Varda has spoke in support of capabilities before and I appreciate said viewpoint. I have not studied Sandstorm deep enough to know whether it's really a security tool. I'm under the impression that its main goal is to enable easy self-hosting of server-side applications.
  - haberman 11y ago
    > I have not studied Sandstorm deep enough to know whether it's really a security tool. I'm under the impression that its main goal is to enable easy self-hosting of server-side applications. Check out this: > Sandstorm is a security product. > We like to say that Sandstorm's priorities are Usability, Security, and Freedom. In public, we tend to talk more about usability and freedom, because those are the priorities users are most excited about. However, within the team, we are just as passionate -- if not more so -- about security. > Ultimately, our goal is that, to the maximum extent possible, users need not worry about security, because using the system intuitively will result in the desired security properties "by default". Moreover, we aim to allow network administrators to be able to say: "As long as it's on Sandstorm, you can run whatever apps you want, because we trust Sandstorm to keep things secure." https://docs.sandstorm.io/en/latest/using/security-practices/ https://docs.sandstorm.io/en/latest/using/security-practices...

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

Reading this on mobile, I accidentally tapped no less than three ads, having to then go back, close the bottom ad banner again and re-find my place. Ugh. This is why people use ad blockers.

iokanuon 11y ago
Even with just a simple hosts file, I can't see any ads on mobile. It's amazing that by just blocking domains we can archeive that. The web is awesomely flexible.
- informatimago 11y ago
  Because happily so far they serve the ads from different hosts than the content. I worry for the day when they will serve from the same, and don't provide the contents until you fetched and displayed the ads.

jupiter2 11y ago

"Torvalds talked about security as something unattainable in a Perfect Sense". I would have been more curious to hear his response about Security in the Real Sense. Given what most current OSes are engaged in: surveillance, tracking, data-warehousing, data-sharing with untold/unnamed "trusted" partners, civil rights violations, illegal search/seizure, 5th amendment rights violations, etal... his answer skirts the issue entirely. I guess... what he was saying is that he's like Linux (The Kernel). To paraphrase him: He's an enabler. Perhaps an imp. Something totally hidden and out of people's mind when it comes to how OSes have been weaponized against people. He has no position on the matter.

digi_owl 11y ago

And the discussion descends into the exact kind of security absolutism that he was warning about...

pointfree 11y ago
With all due respect, Linus doesn't know everything. Lately he's been abusing his cult of personality to ultracrepidate on topics such as machine learning https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3ciqkl/linux_creator_linus_torvalds_laughs_at_the_ai/ https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3ciqkl/linux_c... and now provable security.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  What i see is one guy giving his honest opinion during a public event. He does not bring up the topic, others do. But when they do, he gives an honest response.