19 ms·

Kaspersky OS

449 points by itiman 10y ago

metafex 10y ago
> All the popular operating systems aren’t designed with security in mind Kaspy OS runs on a switch, and they're talking about popular operating systems, so in the same vein, OpenBSD wouldn't be a popular secure OS for e.g. routers? But hey, I'd be really happy if they based it on seL4 and formally verified their security concepts. That would be a real game-changer. OTOH I'm really sceptical until they provide any relevant details.
- krylon 10y ago
  Also, in a microkernel-based system, verifying the kernel itself is but a start. To make a verifiably secure system for network infrastructure and IoT-devices, you need, at the very least, a provably correct IP stack. Want a nice web interface? Now you need to verify the HTTP server, too. Want to talk to other devices? You probably want a DNS resolver. And so forth... Simply signing code and having the OS refuse to execute code without valid signatures is not going to be sufficient to convince a lot of people that it's a significant improvement security-wise. (If, on the other hand, they make it open source and provide proofs of correctness for all these components, that would indeed be a significant step forward.)
  - petra 10y ago
    But isn't an isolation kernel enables you to limit spread of malware between modules and to detect when a module was compromised and reset it ? Isn't that a big improvement ?
    - krylon 10y ago
      It certainly is an improvement. But my point was that it still leaves a whole lot of attack surface. If you want a provably secure system, you basically need to verify much more than "just" the kernel. On the upside, if one did so, it would have benefits beyond security.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    You do. The good news is that it's not a lot of components. A good example would be what's going on in DO-178B space that requires strong verification albeit not necessarily formal. They subset things like networking standards then build partitioning and quite-static design into them. Resulting ones still have decent amount of features: http://www.lynx.com/lcs-lynx-certifiable-protocol-stack/ http://www.lynx.com/lcs-lynx-certifiable-protocol-stack/ The minimum I've seen are a few drivers, bootloader, partitioning filesystem/storage, partitioning networking, and language runtime (esp Ada or today Rust). That's not a lot to build given what's already available in FOSS or embedded. More than just a separation kernel but not much more.
JetSpiegel 10y ago
> Third, everything has been built from scratch. Anticipating your questions: not even the slightest smell of Linux. Built from scratch and secure, no Linux input. It's the Holy grail, move over Theo.
allendoerfer 10y ago
> Meanwhile, all around this alchemy folks were fairly astonished: just what were we thinking? We’d decided to make an unhackable platform and ruin our other security business model?! If a business wants to survive in the long term, it should always answer this question with: Would it be better if we would build it or others would do it? Because someone will eventually do it.
nateguchi 10y ago
> not even the slightest smell of Linux Interesting to see if this catches on in the embedded / IoT space, I guess it's a bit of a leap writing drivers / software for a different OS
mablap 10y ago
There are no real details about the OS in the article. Did anybody here work on the project?
- alexandr451 10y ago
  From what I heard from people that work there, this company mistreats employees and has huge problems with management. I could provide a proof link, but it's in Russian.
  - devindotcom 10y ago
    Go ahead and provide it, Russian or not.
    - alexandr451 10y ago
      http://otrude.net/employers/25980 http://otrude.net/employers/25980
  - minipci1321 10y ago
    It is preferable to even outright include the link in the original post when making that sort of statements. Without specific details, it sounds pretty much like any random Glassdoor report from un unhappy employee.
    - alexandr451 10y ago
      http://otrude.net/employers/25980 http://otrude.net/employers/25980
    - alexandr451 10y ago
      And one more http://pravda-sotrudnikov.ru/company/laboratoriya-kasperskogo http://pravda-sotrudnikov.ru/company/laboratoriya-kasperskog...
  - erikbye 10y ago
    RMB - Translate to English.
qznc 10y ago
No mention of verification like seL4 or CertiKOS?
- aerioux 10y ago
  ^ i'm interested in this as well. Would it be faster to build a secure OS using similar tech from seL4/CertiKOS now than their 14 yrs?
  - qznc 10y ago
    Gernot Heiser, the leader behind seL4, thinks so: https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/verified-software-can-and-will-be-cheaper-than-buggy-stuff/ https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/verified-so... They built infrastructure to build verified OS stuff faster/cheaper. For example, they reimplemented ext2fs for Linux.
- minipci1321 10y ago
  I understand CertiKOS used Coq so the verification was at least half-automated? How L4 was certified -- what were the tools available at the time? Verification still remains huge work but sounds less heroic nowadays. Now that we have tools and methodologies for verification, the announce of yet another secure OS suddenly sounds much less impressive.
  - sanxiyn 10y ago
    Here is seL4 proof: https://github.com/seL4/l4v https://github.com/seL4/l4v To quote, "Most proofs in this repository are conducted in the interactive proof assistant Isabelle/HOL".
f_allwein 10y ago
Will this be open source, or will we have to trust Kapersky that it is secure?
- yug 10y ago
  I guess you'll have to trust him and his friends from the FSB (former KGB) :)
  - antocv 10y ago
    Do you make the same remarks when Google, Microsoft, Apple or Palantir releases software?
    - yoz-y 10y ago
      I have the impression that ever since Snowden happened, yes. Any mention of a non open source OS gets accompanied by remarks about NSA, FBI and co.
      - erikbye 10y ago
        Open source projects are not shielded from this either. Plenty of paranoia, justified or not, going around these days. https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/julian-assange-debian-is-owned-by-the-nsa/ https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/julian-assange-de... http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5231006/nsa-paid-10-million-for-a-back-door-into-rsa-encryption-according-to http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5231006/nsa-paid-10-milli... https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-backdoor-left-in-Unix-or-Linux-intentionally https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-backdoor-left-in-Unix-or-... https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-the-nsa-may-have-put-a-backdoor-in-rsas-cryptography-a-technical-primer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-the-nsa-may-have-put-a-backd... On one hand, we've been privy to some of NSA's operations, on the other, there is still a lot left to be disclosed, most will of course, never be out in the open.
        this-dang-guy 10y ago
lifeisstillgood 10y ago
This is interesting, yes, but secure is not secure because we had a nice architectural idea. It's a long term process of review and improvement. If they release this as open source I would be interested in looking and learning more and in a year or two, if the community develops maybe it's something worth deploying to production But a completely new OS? Not on day one I think
Animats 10y ago
Somebody finally did this. Good for them. Unbreakable boxes for DNS, BGP, and routers will be a good start. Those boxes don't need to do anything else, and contain no user data. Looking forward to hearing more about their OS.
- woof 10y ago
  Unbreakable? From a company based in Russia? Really?
  - antocv 10y ago
    Does Russia make backdoored hardware and software? Do you have proof of that? But we do have proof USA does that. See Snowden leaks.
    - johndoe90 10y ago
      No leaks doesn't mean there's nothing to leak.
    - jpatokal 10y ago
      Recent Russian legislation mandates backdoors: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/russias-new-spy-law-calls-for-metadata-and-content-to-be-stored-plus-crypto-backdoors/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/russias-new-spy-l...
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "Finally?" Did you miss HYDRA, Secure64, or the MILS/DO-178B groups building certified, partitioning middleware? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12988808 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12988808 http://www.lynx.com/lcs-lynx-certifiable-protocol-stack/ http://www.lynx.com/lcs-lynx-certifiable-protocol-stack/ It's been going on. The OEM's just aren't buying or cloning any of it outside a few. Many of those that do are going out of business because customers vote against security with their wallet. Even when the cost isn't much more. Outside of pure defense contractors, one of only ones making it is Genua selling OpenBSD-based solutions in Layer 2 and 3. Assuming they're still OpenBSD-based. "Looking forward to hearing more about their OS." I agree with this and your view on the need to develop more bare-bones, clean-slate solutions for these kinds of services. If we're lucky, Kaspersky's will both be more secure than Linux-based products and have convenient, affordable licensing than forerunners to get major adoption. However, as you probably know from high-assurance, a company with no history of making a system secure against strong attackers will probably fail to do so with its products. That's my default anyway. So, I also look forward to the details to compare and contrast against competing solutions in medium- and high-assurance spaces.
ktamiola 10y ago
Haha! I am curious how long will it take to have it completely cracked.
- setq 10y ago
  On the basis that the grander the announcement, the greater the motivation to break it, I reckon about 20 minutes.
  - ktamiola 10y ago
    Correct! Kaspersky has just placed a MASSIVE TARGET on his back. Understandably, investors do want catchy stories and media buzz... :)
- gvb 10y ago
  It likely comes pre-compromised. See other discussion on Kaspersky's "dodgy history".
krylon 10y ago
It sounds very interesting, for sure, but the announcement is a little thin on details. The OS is apparently based around a microkernel. Which sounds good, but AFAIK, microkernels are comparatively popular in the embedded space (think QNX, L4) - so that choice is not in itself revolutionary. They mention signatures, and it kind of sounds as if the OS will refuse to execute any non-signed code. Again, sounds like a good idea in principle, but remember how Stuxnet came with - IIRC - two valid signatures created with stolen keys. It might be better than nothing, but to an attacker with sufficiently deep pockets, no quantum computers are needed. Of course, those are just random thoughts popping into my head. I should wait for more details before passing judgment. A (verifiably?) secure OS for embedded and "IoT" devices would be very desirable, that much is certain.
- pawadu 10y ago
  L4 is popular in embedded space? Can you provide some examples?
  - minipci1321 10y ago
    Not sure if the parent meant this specifically, but the commercial version of L4 was ported to ARM to host Android, and was then used in some commercial phones -- deployed in millions says Internet: http://linuxfr.org/nodes/88229/comments/1291183 http://linuxfr.org/nodes/88229/comments/1291183
  - krylon 10y ago
    Wikipedia says: "L4 is widely deployed. One variant, OKL4 from Open Kernel Labs, shipped in billions of mobile devices.", links to a press announcement: https://web.archive.org/web/20120211210405/http://www.ok-labs.com/releases/release/ok-labs-software-surpasses-milestone-of-1.5-billion-mobile-device-shipments https://web.archive.org/web/20120211210405/http://www.ok-lab... Okay, if I look more closely, OKL4 seems to be used as a hypervisor to host regular kernels. I am not sure how much that buys one, really, from a security point of view. Also, the same Wikipedia article states: "Apple mobile application processors beginning with the A7 contain a Secure Enclave coprocessor running an L4 operating system. This implies that L4 is now shipping on all iOS devices, the total shipment of which is estimated at 310 million for the year 2015."
jeffcox 10y ago
How is this more secure than any other L3 switch with an out of band (or otherwise hardened) management interface? I'm not going to say no one is attacking switches, but that's definitely not where I'd start.
johndoe90 10y ago
Given that there's not only software bugs, but the hardware ones, I wonder how secure it would be. I personally hate their software, but still, it would be nice to know. P.S. Security without open-sourcing is impossible. Although, dunno how for other countries, but here in Russia some people have a different point of view. Some people believe that “opensource is insecure by design, because everyone can see the code”. Probably Kaspersky has the same point.
- SXX 10y ago
  Kaspersky is too smart to have such point, but their target markets might require different marketing.
- mfukar 10y ago
  > Security without open-sourcing is impossible is just as documented an assertion as > opensource is insecure by design The two are completely orthogonal.
  - johndoe90 10y ago
    Those were two different opinions. First is mine, the second is my interviewer's.
mrmondo 10y ago
My thoughts went as follows - Interesting..., Hmmm Not much real information..., hope its open source..., is this for network appliances or for general use..., again if isn't open source I really don't care.
sjellis 10y ago
My suspicion is that most attempts to create a better OS for IoT will fail for political reasons. AFIAKT, one really important characteristic of Linux (and JavaScript also) for large tech companies is that they can control their own stacks, without having to license tech from another corporation, but still have the benefit of network effects. Samsung have Tizen, Google have ChromeOS etc. etc. At the component level, Linux also empowers the chip vendors to build what they want on their own timescales and then address a large market. Even open Linux drivers are sometimes loaders for proprietary firmware, so they aren't really giving up the ability to ship code in a black box. I don't see any of them willingly cooperating with a company that wants to manage and deliver the whole OS from the the kernel up. TLDR: The industry probably does not want a Microsoft for IoT.
- sgt 10y ago
  Speaking of OS's for IoT - I think http://www.contiki-os.org/ http://www.contiki-os.org/ deserves a mention.
- unboxed_type 10y ago
  Here is my 50 cent. Zephyr OS from Linux foundation: https://www.zephyrproject.org/ https://www.zephyrproject.org/
- mmalone 10y ago
  Linux doesn't scale down very well though. I really don't need the full Linux API for a lightbulb. Most embedded OSs are microkernels for this reason. If any mega-trend has a chance of unseating Linux and generally disrupting the OS space it's IoT.
  - bonzini 10y ago
    A lightbulb will have an RTOS, not a microkernel. While microkernels provide utmost isolation between processes and well-defined primitives for communications, a lightbulb might not even have separate supervisor and user modes.
    - 10y ago
kriro 10y ago
No word on if this is FLOSS or not in the article so I'm assuming it'll be something closed. Which essentially renders the entire exercise moot form my POV. I also don't like how they mentioned Linux. They make it sound as if (a) Linux is very insecure...I'm no expert but I'd like to see them prove their system is more secure than a Linux distro dedicated to security. (b) Linux is the only viable option. There's plenty of other operating systems, some even focus on security (starting with the list of existing microkernels).
- pabloski 10y ago
  "Anticipating your questions: not even the slightest smell of Linux. All the popular operating systems aren’t designed with security in mind, so it’s simpler and safer to start from the ground up and do everything correctly." It looks like a realistic assessment. General purpose operating systems ( at least the 3 most famous ones ) are built with ease of use in mind, not security. Even Torvalds admits it, saying that he sees performance as a top priority, and not security. If Kaspersky OS is more secure or not, we will see in the future.
  - hobarrera 10y ago
    OpenBSD is pretty popular in the security community, and is as FLOSS as it gets.
    - vbezhenar 10y ago
      Yet it's not widely used as embedded OS. I never saw any router with OpenBSD or web camera. The underlying problem, IMO, is people. They just don't care about security, they want to deliver working device. Also it's not clear how many vulnerabilities, used in real life attacks (like DDOS from IoT devices) are in latest Linux kernel? May be problem not with Linux, but with custom software or lack of updates.
      - MichaelBurge 10y ago
        These two statements contradict each other: > The underlying problem, IMO, is people. They just don't care about security, they want to deliver working device. > This unassuming black box is [...] designed for networks with extreme requirements for data security. You can claim that nobody will buy Kaspersky's device, or that they did poor market research. But you can't claim that they don't care about security.
partycoder 10y ago
Should probably be named "Unbreakable Linux"... oh wait, that name is already taken by Oracle.
madshiva 10y ago
"In order to hack this platform a cyber-baddie would need to break the digital signature, which – any time before the introduction of quantum computers – would be exorbitantly expensive." I loled
- this-dang-guy 10y ago
  Very "Secrets from the future" of him :D
akourman 10y ago
I think after Microsoft is part of Linux foundation now, and now your telling us that you have a powerful and secure CLOSE source OS !!! .. I think Open Source already won the war!! and your somewhat 14 years late...
- jeffjose 10y ago
  I'm reall
known 10y ago
I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD_security_features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD_security_features has good security features
mda 10y ago
Closed source OS from an anti virus company with a dodgy history? I will pass.
- ktamiola 10y ago
  The same here!
- davedx 10y ago
  Dodgy history?
- agopaul 10y ago
  Could you expand on the "dodgy history"? I always thought that Kaspersky was one of the "good guys"
  - lostboys67 10y ago
    Went to a KGB sponsored Uni and worked for the GRU :-)
  - mda 10y ago
    There are several controversies, you can Google it, but that is not really important. Only "anti virus company" clause would be enough for me to not touch it with a ten foot pole.
  - golergka 10y ago
    Kaspersky had a history of working with Russian security agencies, has a lot of buddies there and a lot of people have throughout their careers moved from Kaspersky to these agencies and vice versa. If Russia will need somerhing from Kaspersky, government won't even need a warrant - he'll be happy to help.
    - linkregister 10y ago
      Are there any news articles to substantiate the claim that Kaspersky readily gives information to the Russian government?
minipci1321 10y ago
"not even the slightest smell of Linux." So me too I have a dream. In my dream, every shop that needs two threads running and one semaphore synchronizing, will cease porting Linux and instead will roll up the sleeves, writes their own kernel 100% matching their need, prove its validity via formal verification and then use it. In the world where this is possible, why would one go for a non-generic OS from a third party? Does look to me like Kaspersky might have that same vision for the future and tries to leverage their assets while it is not too late. But security-by-brand-name is not really better than security-by-verification, isn't it?
- pjc50 10y ago
  > writes their own kernel 100% matching their need, prove its validity via formal verification It's hard enough for one organisation to do this, given the fairly specialised set of skills it requires. Let alone every IoT vendor. There's no reason to massively replicate this kind of work. People would be better off building an ecosystem around sel4.
  - minipci1321 10y ago
    Agree, I'd like exactly to look closer inside "hard enough". First, it depends on each specification -- what if the hardware is much-much smaller (IoT) and task to perform is well defined? It is hard today primarily because the required skill set becomes less and less current, but it is all demand-driven, it was not so some time ago. Secondly, it could be replicated to some extent only -- for example, verified libraries for each device could come from each HW IP provider, instead of coming from the SoC vendor who integrated them. Say, Synopsis would provide a verified lib for the GbE controller -- to use with all SoCs that integrate it, etc. And the final integrator would take care of verifying the final integration, including his very small, fast, low-power-consuming and maintainable and 100%-dedicated kernel. But my main argument is that the alternative is not so good-looking either. Porting and validation of the Linux kernel is performed mostly by engineers who have not the required skillset (managerial decision to spare on hires since "we have Linux") -- this is also something that I wish wasn't replicated among product makers but is, unfortunately.
anta40 10y ago
Somehow this reminds me to John Draper's CrunchBox. Of course, it ran OpenBSD, an open source OS.
jwildeboer 10y ago
Security through obscurity. I thought we all have learned that it doesn't work. Well, good riddance, KasperskyOS! "And then there are some details that will remain for certain customers’ eyes only forever, to ward off cyber-terrorist abuses." https://eugene.kaspersky.com/2012/10/16/kl-developing-its-own-operating-system-we-confirm-the-rumors-and-end-the-speculation/ https://eugene.kaspersky.com/2012/10/16/kl-developing-its-ow...
- wjnc 10y ago
  I agree. What I find interesting is that real world security is also a function of popularity. You won't get many outside hackers to attack a platform, if it's hardly used. So any new platform would first need broad adoption, then a few years of maturity in able for the outside world to assess if it's more secure than current systems. Obviously, security centric design helps a lot, but on the other hand Kaspersky is a relatively small player in comparison with the other OS-movements (whether capitalist or FOSS).
  - bigato 10y ago
    Popularity is not exactly what attracts most hackers nowadays; it's profit. Yes, in the common case, the more popular the system, the more profit can be made by hacking it. But if a system is running on a few, but very strategic places, it will be an interesting target and thus attract a lot of effort.
- JonnieCache 10y ago
  >Security through obscurity. I thought we all have learned that it doesn't work We've all learned that it can't be relied upon as a sole defence.
seesomesense 10y ago
The marketing makes it sound a bit like SeL4. https://sel4.systems/ https://sel4.systems/
itazula 10y ago
Happy Pocky Day! (11-11)
- itazula 10y ago
  Alas, the allusion was lost on some.
amazing_jose 10y ago
What about Firebrick? the company that manufactures it says that it an in-house TCP/IP stack (I don't know if they run their own OS). http://www.firebrick.co.uk/ http://www.firebrick.co.uk/
n3mes1s 10y ago
some interesting finding: - https://twitter.com/gN3mes1s/status/798992790436933632 https://twitter.com/gN3mes1s/status/798992790436933632 - RU slides http://osday.ru/presentations/duhvalov/9jun.rifinnopolis16-17-30-19-00--dyhvalov.pdf http://osday.ru/presentations/duhvalov/9jun.rifinnopolis16-1... - RU presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iEaY_CGcy8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iEaY_CGcy8
EugeneOZ 10y ago
Only use it if you want to send all of your information to FSB (modern KGB). Evgeniy Kasperskiy has friends in government, police and FSB. He also is apologet of state surveillance.
- narrator 10y ago
  Iran and other SCO countries will be customers since they are friendly with Russia. I wonder if they are running it on Elbrus chips. That would make it extra super secure and Russian.
  - dfox 10y ago
    Given that the photos show obviously bodged-on VGA connector and AHCI-related messages with Intel's vendor ID on screen I would assume that it is just a normal PC (ie. white-box switch).
  - PerfectDlite 10y ago
    > That would make it extra super secure and Russian. And extra slow, considering Elbrus performance.
- a1a 10y ago
  Any reliable source? This is quite the accusation
  - nols 10y ago
    Here's a Wikipedia summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Kaspersky#Alleged_affiliations_with_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Kaspersky#Alleged_affil...
  - at-fates-hands 10y ago
    The Company Securing Your Internet Has Close Ties to Russian Spies: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-19/cybersecurity-kaspersky-has-close-ties-to-russian-spies http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-19/cybersecur... Kaspersky Lab: Based In Russia, Doing Cybersecurity In The West: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/08/10/431247980/kaspersky-lab-a-cybersecurity-leader-with-ties-to-russian-govt http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/08/10/431... Russia’s Top Cyber Sleuth Foils US Spies, Helps Kremlin Pals: https://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff_kaspersky/ https://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff_kaspersky/ Global Cyber Security Firm Kaspersky Denies KGB Ties and Helping Russian Intelligence: https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/global-cyber-security-firm-kaspersky-denies-kgb-ties-and-helping-russian-intelligence-44980 https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/global-cyber-security-fi...
deavmi 10y ago
Russia. Ha. No my friend. Kaspersky. Ha. No my friend. Closed source. Ha no, and you ain't ma friend.
- dang 10y ago
  Please stop posting unsubstantive comments.
ungzd 10y ago
One of their developers said they're using C code generators in Haskell in this OS: https://youtu.be/f6TmB6Zw8MQ?t=1860 https://youtu.be/f6TmB6Zw8MQ?t=1860
quinndupont 10y ago
Quite literally the opposite of any reasonable definition of security. "Security" isn't magic fairy dust, or a tagline, it is a social property that arises only _after_ many years of use and adaptation > "everything has been built from scratch... it’s simpler and safer to start from the ground up and do everything correctly. Which is just what we did."
k_bx 10y ago
KgbOS
ramblenode 10y ago
Just a few days ago I became aware of CertiKOS, which is apparently a formally verified kernel [0] [1]. I think these two aspects--formal verifiability and being open source--are key for a truly secure OS of the future. [0] http://news.yale.edu/2016/11/14/certikos-breakthrough-toward-hacker-resistant-operating-systems http://news.yale.edu/2016/11/14/certikos-breakthrough-toward... [1] https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi16/technical-sessions/presentation/gu https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi16/technical-sessions/...
wildchild 10y ago
I would stay away from every snake oil product this KGB agent sells.
dewiz 10y ago
>"All the popular operating systems aren’t designed with security in mind" I really disagree.
floatboth 10y ago
A lot of OpenBSD mentions here, but what about MINIX 3? It's so underrated and ignored :( They made a nice microkernel-based UNIX-like system with a NetBSD userspace. Also, Redox is switching to a microkernel architecture...
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  re MINIX 3. It's not made for high-security. It's about high-reliability. Safety is usually a precursor to security but security can take a lot more. The core has to be designed for it like Genode is doing. re Redox. It's a nice project I've praised before. It's an alpha work-in-progress, changing rapidly, and unclear how much of its design is truly for security. A trimmed OpenBSD is probably a safer bet than it so far given the staggering amount of review that went into it. Rust's features and a microkernel only prevent so many kinds of problems.
  - Recoveringhobo 10y ago
    For the uninformed, what problems would Rust's features and microkernel not protect against?
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      I can't even remember for Rust. I just know Rust team here admitted there was a cut-off point in terms of safety features it provides like any other language. For microkernels, all they do is memory isolation plus limit kernel-mode damage. Past that, you have to design extra capabilities into the microkernel, trusted code, or apps. You can even have concurrency errors in your apps with those if there's a shared-memory space allowed.
thiagowfx 10y ago
Since this is an OS designed with security in mind, and since they even mentioned Linux (albeit not too nicely), I missed a comparison with or mention of OpenBSD.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
andrewmine 10y ago
Anybody know which microkernel they are using? I was not able to find it
frandroid 10y ago
I want to highlight how their "sign up to our newsletter" pop-up only popped up when I scrolled to the bottom of the article, and how it had a prominent "No thanks" button. So much better UI than all those pop-on-load-before-I've-read-anything ones out there.

449 points by itiman 10y ago

> All the popular operating systems aren’t designed with security in mind Kaspy OS runs on a switch, and they're talking about popular operating systems, so in the same vein, OpenBSD wouldn't be a popular secure OS for e.g. routers? But hey, I'd be really happy if they based it on seL4 and formally verified their security concepts. That would be a real game-changer. OTOH I'm really sceptical until they provide any relevant details.

krylon 10y ago
Also, in a microkernel-based system, verifying the kernel itself is but a start. To make a verifiably secure system for network infrastructure and IoT-devices, you need, at the very least, a provably correct IP stack. Want a nice web interface? Now you need to verify the HTTP server, too. Want to talk to other devices? You probably want a DNS resolver. And so forth... Simply signing code and having the OS refuse to execute code without valid signatures is not going to be sufficient to convince a lot of people that it's a significant improvement security-wise. (If, on the other hand, they make it open source and provide proofs of correctness for all these components, that would indeed be a significant step forward.)
- petra 10y ago
  But isn't an isolation kernel enables you to limit spread of malware between modules and to detect when a module was compromised and reset it ? Isn't that a big improvement ?
  - krylon 10y ago
    It certainly is an improvement. But my point was that it still leaves a whole lot of attack surface. If you want a provably secure system, you basically need to verify much more than "just" the kernel. On the upside, if one did so, it would have benefits beyond security.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  You do. The good news is that it's not a lot of components. A good example would be what's going on in DO-178B space that requires strong verification albeit not necessarily formal. They subset things like networking standards then build partitioning and quite-static design into them. Resulting ones still have decent amount of features: http://www.lynx.com/lcs-lynx-certifiable-protocol-stack/ http://www.lynx.com/lcs-lynx-certifiable-protocol-stack/ The minimum I've seen are a few drivers, bootloader, partitioning filesystem/storage, partitioning networking, and language runtime (esp Ada or today Rust). That's not a lot to build given what's already available in FOSS or embedded. More than just a separation kernel but not much more.

JetSpiegel 10y ago

> Third, everything has been built from scratch. Anticipating your questions: not even the slightest smell of Linux. Built from scratch and secure, no Linux input. It's the Holy grail, move over Theo.

allendoerfer 10y ago

> Meanwhile, all around this alchemy folks were fairly astonished: just what were we thinking? We’d decided to make an unhackable platform and ruin our other security business model?! If a business wants to survive in the long term, it should always answer this question with: Would it be better if we would build it or others would do it? Because someone will eventually do it.

nateguchi 10y ago

> not even the slightest smell of Linux Interesting to see if this catches on in the embedded / IoT space, I guess it's a bit of a leap writing drivers / software for a different OS

mablap 10y ago

There are no real details about the OS in the article. Did anybody here work on the project?

alexandr451 10y ago
From what I heard from people that work there, this company mistreats employees and has huge problems with management. I could provide a proof link, but it's in Russian.
- devindotcom 10y ago
  Go ahead and provide it, Russian or not.
  - alexandr451 10y ago
    http://otrude.net/employers/25980 http://otrude.net/employers/25980
- minipci1321 10y ago
  It is preferable to even outright include the link in the original post when making that sort of statements. Without specific details, it sounds pretty much like any random Glassdoor report from un unhappy employee.
  - alexandr451 10y ago
    http://otrude.net/employers/25980 http://otrude.net/employers/25980
  - alexandr451 10y ago
    And one more http://pravda-sotrudnikov.ru/company/laboratoriya-kasperskogo http://pravda-sotrudnikov.ru/company/laboratoriya-kasperskog...
- erikbye 10y ago
  RMB - Translate to English.

qznc 10y ago

No mention of verification like seL4 or CertiKOS?

aerioux 10y ago
^ i'm interested in this as well. Would it be faster to build a secure OS using similar tech from seL4/CertiKOS now than their 14 yrs?
- qznc 10y ago
  Gernot Heiser, the leader behind seL4, thinks so: https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/verified-software-can-and-will-be-cheaper-than-buggy-stuff/ https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/verified-so... They built infrastructure to build verified OS stuff faster/cheaper. For example, they reimplemented ext2fs for Linux.
minipci1321 10y ago
I understand CertiKOS used Coq so the verification was at least half-automated? How L4 was certified -- what were the tools available at the time? Verification still remains huge work but sounds less heroic nowadays. Now that we have tools and methodologies for verification, the announce of yet another secure OS suddenly sounds much less impressive.
- sanxiyn 10y ago
  Here is seL4 proof: https://github.com/seL4/l4v https://github.com/seL4/l4v To quote, "Most proofs in this repository are conducted in the interactive proof assistant Isabelle/HOL".

f_allwein 10y ago

Will this be open source, or will we have to trust Kapersky that it is secure?

yug 10y ago
I guess you'll have to trust him and his friends from the FSB (former KGB) :)
- antocv 10y ago
  Do you make the same remarks when Google, Microsoft, Apple or Palantir releases software?
  - yoz-y 10y ago
    I have the impression that ever since Snowden happened, yes. Any mention of a non open source OS gets accompanied by remarks about NSA, FBI and co.
    - erikbye 10y ago
      Open source projects are not shielded from this either. Plenty of paranoia, justified or not, going around these days. https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/julian-assange-debian-is-owned-by-the-nsa/ https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/julian-assange-de... http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5231006/nsa-paid-10-million-for-a-back-door-into-rsa-encryption-according-to http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5231006/nsa-paid-10-milli... https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-backdoor-left-in-Unix-or-Linux-intentionally https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-backdoor-left-in-Unix-or-... https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-the-nsa-may-have-put-a-backdoor-in-rsas-cryptography-a-technical-primer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-the-nsa-may-have-put-a-backd... On one hand, we've been privy to some of NSA's operations, on the other, there is still a lot left to be disclosed, most will of course, never be out in the open.
      - this-dang-guy 10y ago

lifeisstillgood 10y ago

This is interesting, yes, but secure is not secure because we had a nice architectural idea. It's a long term process of review and improvement. If they release this as open source I would be interested in looking and learning more and in a year or two, if the community develops maybe it's something worth deploying to production But a completely new OS? Not on day one I think

Animats 10y ago

Somebody finally did this. Good for them. Unbreakable boxes for DNS, BGP, and routers will be a good start. Those boxes don't need to do anything else, and contain no user data. Looking forward to hearing more about their OS.

woof 10y ago
Unbreakable? From a company based in Russia? Really?
- antocv 10y ago
  Does Russia make backdoored hardware and software? Do you have proof of that? But we do have proof USA does that. See Snowden leaks.
  - johndoe90 10y ago
    No leaks doesn't mean there's nothing to leak.
  - jpatokal 10y ago
    Recent Russian legislation mandates backdoors: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/russias-new-spy-law-calls-for-metadata-and-content-to-be-stored-plus-crypto-backdoors/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/russias-new-spy-l...
nickpsecurity 10y ago
"Finally?" Did you miss HYDRA, Secure64, or the MILS/DO-178B groups building certified, partitioning middleware? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12988808 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12988808 http://www.lynx.com/lcs-lynx-certifiable-protocol-stack/ http://www.lynx.com/lcs-lynx-certifiable-protocol-stack/ It's been going on. The OEM's just aren't buying or cloning any of it outside a few. Many of those that do are going out of business because customers vote against security with their wallet. Even when the cost isn't much more. Outside of pure defense contractors, one of only ones making it is Genua selling OpenBSD-based solutions in Layer 2 and 3. Assuming they're still OpenBSD-based. "Looking forward to hearing more about their OS." I agree with this and your view on the need to develop more bare-bones, clean-slate solutions for these kinds of services. If we're lucky, Kaspersky's will both be more secure than Linux-based products and have convenient, affordable licensing than forerunners to get major adoption. However, as you probably know from high-assurance, a company with no history of making a system secure against strong attackers will probably fail to do so with its products. That's my default anyway. So, I also look forward to the details to compare and contrast against competing solutions in medium- and high-assurance spaces.

ktamiola 10y ago

Haha! I am curious how long will it take to have it completely cracked.

setq 10y ago
On the basis that the grander the announcement, the greater the motivation to break it, I reckon about 20 minutes.
- ktamiola 10y ago
  Correct! Kaspersky has just placed a MASSIVE TARGET on his back. Understandably, investors do want catchy stories and media buzz... :)
gvb 10y ago
It likely comes pre-compromised. See other discussion on Kaspersky's "dodgy history".

krylon 10y ago

It sounds very interesting, for sure, but the announcement is a little thin on details. The OS is apparently based around a microkernel. Which sounds good, but AFAIK, microkernels are comparatively popular in the embedded space (think QNX, L4) - so that choice is not in itself revolutionary. They mention signatures, and it kind of sounds as if the OS will refuse to execute any non-signed code. Again, sounds like a good idea in principle, but remember how Stuxnet came with - IIRC - two valid signatures created with stolen keys. It might be better than nothing, but to an attacker with sufficiently deep pockets, no quantum computers are needed. Of course, those are just random thoughts popping into my head. I should wait for more details before passing judgment. A (verifiably?) secure OS for embedded and "IoT" devices would be very desirable, that much is certain.

pawadu 10y ago
L4 is popular in embedded space? Can you provide some examples?
- minipci1321 10y ago
  Not sure if the parent meant this specifically, but the commercial version of L4 was ported to ARM to host Android, and was then used in some commercial phones -- deployed in millions says Internet: http://linuxfr.org/nodes/88229/comments/1291183 http://linuxfr.org/nodes/88229/comments/1291183
- krylon 10y ago
  Wikipedia says: "L4 is widely deployed. One variant, OKL4 from Open Kernel Labs, shipped in billions of mobile devices.", links to a press announcement: https://web.archive.org/web/20120211210405/http://www.ok-labs.com/releases/release/ok-labs-software-surpasses-milestone-of-1.5-billion-mobile-device-shipments https://web.archive.org/web/20120211210405/http://www.ok-lab... Okay, if I look more closely, OKL4 seems to be used as a hypervisor to host regular kernels. I am not sure how much that buys one, really, from a security point of view. Also, the same Wikipedia article states: "Apple mobile application processors beginning with the A7 contain a Secure Enclave coprocessor running an L4 operating system. This implies that L4 is now shipping on all iOS devices, the total shipment of which is estimated at 310 million for the year 2015."

jeffcox 10y ago

How is this more secure than any other L3 switch with an out of band (or otherwise hardened) management interface? I'm not going to say no one is attacking switches, but that's definitely not where I'd start.

johndoe90 10y ago

Given that there's not only software bugs, but the hardware ones, I wonder how secure it would be. I personally hate their software, but still, it would be nice to know. P.S. Security without open-sourcing is impossible. Although, dunno how for other countries, but here in Russia some people have a different point of view. Some people believe that “opensource is insecure by design, because everyone can see the code”. Probably Kaspersky has the same point.

SXX 10y ago
Kaspersky is too smart to have such point, but their target markets might require different marketing.
mfukar 10y ago
> Security without open-sourcing is impossible is just as documented an assertion as > opensource is insecure by design The two are completely orthogonal.
- johndoe90 10y ago
  Those were two different opinions. First is mine, the second is my interviewer's.

mrmondo 10y ago

My thoughts went as follows - Interesting..., Hmmm Not much real information..., hope its open source..., is this for network appliances or for general use..., again if isn't open source I really don't care.

sjellis 10y ago

My suspicion is that most attempts to create a better OS for IoT will fail for political reasons. AFIAKT, one really important characteristic of Linux (and JavaScript also) for large tech companies is that they can control their own stacks, without having to license tech from another corporation, but still have the benefit of network effects. Samsung have Tizen, Google have ChromeOS etc. etc. At the component level, Linux also empowers the chip vendors to build what they want on their own timescales and then address a large market. Even open Linux drivers are sometimes loaders for proprietary firmware, so they aren't really giving up the ability to ship code in a black box. I don't see any of them willingly cooperating with a company that wants to manage and deliver the whole OS from the the kernel up. TLDR: The industry probably does not want a Microsoft for IoT.

sgt 10y ago
Speaking of OS's for IoT - I think http://www.contiki-os.org/ http://www.contiki-os.org/ deserves a mention.
unboxed_type 10y ago
Here is my 50 cent. Zephyr OS from Linux foundation: https://www.zephyrproject.org/ https://www.zephyrproject.org/
mmalone 10y ago
Linux doesn't scale down very well though. I really don't need the full Linux API for a lightbulb. Most embedded OSs are microkernels for this reason. If any mega-trend has a chance of unseating Linux and generally disrupting the OS space it's IoT.
- bonzini 10y ago
  A lightbulb will have an RTOS, not a microkernel. While microkernels provide utmost isolation between processes and well-defined primitives for communications, a lightbulb might not even have separate supervisor and user modes.
  - 10y ago

kriro 10y ago

No word on if this is FLOSS or not in the article so I'm assuming it'll be something closed. Which essentially renders the entire exercise moot form my POV. I also don't like how they mentioned Linux. They make it sound as if (a) Linux is very insecure...I'm no expert but I'd like to see them prove their system is more secure than a Linux distro dedicated to security. (b) Linux is the only viable option. There's plenty of other operating systems, some even focus on security (starting with the list of existing microkernels).

pabloski 10y ago
"Anticipating your questions: not even the slightest smell of Linux. All the popular operating systems aren’t designed with security in mind, so it’s simpler and safer to start from the ground up and do everything correctly." It looks like a realistic assessment. General purpose operating systems ( at least the 3 most famous ones ) are built with ease of use in mind, not security. Even Torvalds admits it, saying that he sees performance as a top priority, and not security. If Kaspersky OS is more secure or not, we will see in the future.
- hobarrera 10y ago
  OpenBSD is pretty popular in the security community, and is as FLOSS as it gets.
  - vbezhenar 10y ago
    Yet it's not widely used as embedded OS. I never saw any router with OpenBSD or web camera. The underlying problem, IMO, is people. They just don't care about security, they want to deliver working device. Also it's not clear how many vulnerabilities, used in real life attacks (like DDOS from IoT devices) are in latest Linux kernel? May be problem not with Linux, but with custom software or lack of updates.
    - MichaelBurge 10y ago
      These two statements contradict each other: > The underlying problem, IMO, is people. They just don't care about security, they want to deliver working device. > This unassuming black box is [...] designed for networks with extreme requirements for data security. You can claim that nobody will buy Kaspersky's device, or that they did poor market research. But you can't claim that they don't care about security.

partycoder 10y ago

Should probably be named "Unbreakable Linux"... oh wait, that name is already taken by Oracle.

madshiva 10y ago

"In order to hack this platform a cyber-baddie would need to break the digital signature, which – any time before the introduction of quantum computers – would be exorbitantly expensive." I loled

this-dang-guy 10y ago
Very "Secrets from the future" of him :D

akourman 10y ago

I think after Microsoft is part of Linux foundation now, and now your telling us that you have a powerful and secure CLOSE source OS !!! .. I think Open Source already won the war!! and your somewhat 14 years late...

jeffjose 10y ago
I'm reall

known 10y ago

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD_security_features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD_security_features has good security features

mda 10y ago

Closed source OS from an anti virus company with a dodgy history? I will pass.

ktamiola 10y ago
The same here!
davedx 10y ago
Dodgy history?
agopaul 10y ago
Could you expand on the "dodgy history"? I always thought that Kaspersky was one of the "good guys"
- lostboys67 10y ago
  Went to a KGB sponsored Uni and worked for the GRU :-)
- mda 10y ago
  There are several controversies, you can Google it, but that is not really important. Only "anti virus company" clause would be enough for me to not touch it with a ten foot pole.
- golergka 10y ago
  Kaspersky had a history of working with Russian security agencies, has a lot of buddies there and a lot of people have throughout their careers moved from Kaspersky to these agencies and vice versa. If Russia will need somerhing from Kaspersky, government won't even need a warrant - he'll be happy to help.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Are there any news articles to substantiate the claim that Kaspersky readily gives information to the Russian government?

minipci1321 10y ago

"not even the slightest smell of Linux." So me too I have a dream. In my dream, every shop that needs two threads running and one semaphore synchronizing, will cease porting Linux and instead will roll up the sleeves, writes their own kernel 100% matching their need, prove its validity via formal verification and then use it. In the world where this is possible, why would one go for a non-generic OS from a third party? Does look to me like Kaspersky might have that same vision for the future and tries to leverage their assets while it is not too late. But security-by-brand-name is not really better than security-by-verification, isn't it?

pjc50 10y ago
> writes their own kernel 100% matching their need, prove its validity via formal verification It's hard enough for one organisation to do this, given the fairly specialised set of skills it requires. Let alone every IoT vendor. There's no reason to massively replicate this kind of work. People would be better off building an ecosystem around sel4.
- minipci1321 10y ago
  Agree, I'd like exactly to look closer inside "hard enough". First, it depends on each specification -- what if the hardware is much-much smaller (IoT) and task to perform is well defined? It is hard today primarily because the required skill set becomes less and less current, but it is all demand-driven, it was not so some time ago. Secondly, it could be replicated to some extent only -- for example, verified libraries for each device could come from each HW IP provider, instead of coming from the SoC vendor who integrated them. Say, Synopsis would provide a verified lib for the GbE controller -- to use with all SoCs that integrate it, etc. And the final integrator would take care of verifying the final integration, including his very small, fast, low-power-consuming and maintainable and 100%-dedicated kernel. But my main argument is that the alternative is not so good-looking either. Porting and validation of the Linux kernel is performed mostly by engineers who have not the required skillset (managerial decision to spare on hires since "we have Linux") -- this is also something that I wish wasn't replicated among product makers but is, unfortunately.

anta40 10y ago

Somehow this reminds me to John Draper's CrunchBox. Of course, it ran OpenBSD, an open source OS.

jwildeboer 10y ago

Security through obscurity. I thought we all have learned that it doesn't work. Well, good riddance, KasperskyOS! "And then there are some details that will remain for certain customers’ eyes only forever, to ward off cyber-terrorist abuses." https://eugene.kaspersky.com/2012/10/16/kl-developing-its-own-operating-system-we-confirm-the-rumors-and-end-the-speculation/ https://eugene.kaspersky.com/2012/10/16/kl-developing-its-ow...

wjnc 10y ago
I agree. What I find interesting is that real world security is also a function of popularity. You won't get many outside hackers to attack a platform, if it's hardly used. So any new platform would first need broad adoption, then a few years of maturity in able for the outside world to assess if it's more secure than current systems. Obviously, security centric design helps a lot, but on the other hand Kaspersky is a relatively small player in comparison with the other OS-movements (whether capitalist or FOSS).
- bigato 10y ago
  Popularity is not exactly what attracts most hackers nowadays; it's profit. Yes, in the common case, the more popular the system, the more profit can be made by hacking it. But if a system is running on a few, but very strategic places, it will be an interesting target and thus attract a lot of effort.
JonnieCache 10y ago
>Security through obscurity. I thought we all have learned that it doesn't work We've all learned that it can't be relied upon as a sole defence.

seesomesense 10y ago

The marketing makes it sound a bit like SeL4. https://sel4.systems/ https://sel4.systems/

itazula 10y ago

Happy Pocky Day! (11-11)

itazula 10y ago
Alas, the allusion was lost on some.

amazing_jose 10y ago

What about Firebrick? the company that manufactures it says that it an in-house TCP/IP stack (I don't know if they run their own OS). http://www.firebrick.co.uk/ http://www.firebrick.co.uk/

n3mes1s 10y ago

some interesting finding: - https://twitter.com/gN3mes1s/status/798992790436933632 https://twitter.com/gN3mes1s/status/798992790436933632 - RU slides http://osday.ru/presentations/duhvalov/9jun.rifinnopolis16-17-30-19-00--dyhvalov.pdf http://osday.ru/presentations/duhvalov/9jun.rifinnopolis16-1... - RU presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iEaY_CGcy8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iEaY_CGcy8

EugeneOZ 10y ago

Only use it if you want to send all of your information to FSB (modern KGB). Evgeniy Kasperskiy has friends in government, police and FSB. He also is apologet of state surveillance.

narrator 10y ago
Iran and other SCO countries will be customers since they are friendly with Russia. I wonder if they are running it on Elbrus chips. That would make it extra super secure and Russian.
- dfox 10y ago
  Given that the photos show obviously bodged-on VGA connector and AHCI-related messages with Intel's vendor ID on screen I would assume that it is just a normal PC (ie. white-box switch).
- PerfectDlite 10y ago
  > That would make it extra super secure and Russian. And extra slow, considering Elbrus performance.
a1a 10y ago
Any reliable source? This is quite the accusation
- nols 10y ago
  Here's a Wikipedia summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Kaspersky#Alleged_affiliations_with_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Kaspersky#Alleged_affil...
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  The Company Securing Your Internet Has Close Ties to Russian Spies: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-19/cybersecurity-kaspersky-has-close-ties-to-russian-spies http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-19/cybersecur... Kaspersky Lab: Based In Russia, Doing Cybersecurity In The West: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/08/10/431247980/kaspersky-lab-a-cybersecurity-leader-with-ties-to-russian-govt http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/08/10/431... Russia’s Top Cyber Sleuth Foils US Spies, Helps Kremlin Pals: https://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff_kaspersky/ https://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff_kaspersky/ Global Cyber Security Firm Kaspersky Denies KGB Ties and Helping Russian Intelligence: https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/global-cyber-security-firm-kaspersky-denies-kgb-ties-and-helping-russian-intelligence-44980 https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/global-cyber-security-fi...

deavmi 10y ago

Russia. Ha. No my friend. Kaspersky. Ha. No my friend. Closed source. Ha no, and you ain't ma friend.

dang 10y ago
Please stop posting unsubstantive comments.

ungzd 10y ago

One of their developers said they're using C code generators in Haskell in this OS: https://youtu.be/f6TmB6Zw8MQ?t=1860 https://youtu.be/f6TmB6Zw8MQ?t=1860

quinndupont 10y ago

Quite literally the opposite of any reasonable definition of security. "Security" isn't magic fairy dust, or a tagline, it is a social property that arises only _after_ many years of use and adaptation > "everything has been built from scratch... it’s simpler and safer to start from the ground up and do everything correctly. Which is just what we did."

k_bx 10y ago

KgbOS

ramblenode 10y ago

Just a few days ago I became aware of CertiKOS, which is apparently a formally verified kernel [0] [1]. I think these two aspects--formal verifiability and being open source--are key for a truly secure OS of the future. [0] http://news.yale.edu/2016/11/14/certikos-breakthrough-toward-hacker-resistant-operating-systems http://news.yale.edu/2016/11/14/certikos-breakthrough-toward... [1] https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi16/technical-sessions/presentation/gu https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi16/technical-sessions/...

wildchild 10y ago

I would stay away from every snake oil product this KGB agent sells.

dewiz 10y ago

>"All the popular operating systems aren’t designed with security in mind" I really disagree.

floatboth 10y ago

A lot of OpenBSD mentions here, but what about MINIX 3? It's so underrated and ignored :( They made a nice microkernel-based UNIX-like system with a NetBSD userspace. Also, Redox is switching to a microkernel architecture...

nickpsecurity 10y ago
re MINIX 3. It's not made for high-security. It's about high-reliability. Safety is usually a precursor to security but security can take a lot more. The core has to be designed for it like Genode is doing. re Redox. It's a nice project I've praised before. It's an alpha work-in-progress, changing rapidly, and unclear how much of its design is truly for security. A trimmed OpenBSD is probably a safer bet than it so far given the staggering amount of review that went into it. Rust's features and a microkernel only prevent so many kinds of problems.
- Recoveringhobo 10y ago
  For the uninformed, what problems would Rust's features and microkernel not protect against?
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    I can't even remember for Rust. I just know Rust team here admitted there was a cut-off point in terms of safety features it provides like any other language. For microkernels, all they do is memory isolation plus limit kernel-mode damage. Past that, you have to design extra capabilities into the microkernel, trusted code, or apps. You can even have concurrency errors in your apps with those if there's a shared-memory space allowed.

thiagowfx 10y ago

Since this is an OS designed with security in mind, and since they even mentioned Linux (albeit not too nicely), I missed a comparison with or mention of OpenBSD.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

andrewmine 10y ago

Anybody know which microkernel they are using? I was not able to find it

frandroid 10y ago

I want to highlight how their "sign up to our newsletter" pop-up only popped up when I scrolled to the bottom of the article, and how it had a prominent "No thanks" button. So much better UI than all those pop-on-load-before-I've-read-anything ones out there.