3 ms·
Which is funny, because they say that popular operating systems are not designed with security in mind. They give this as a reason to start from the ground up.
by hawski 10y ago
Which is funny, because they say that popular operating systems are not designed with security in mind. They give this as a reason to start from the ground up. I am from the camp saying that currently sole kernel does not an OS make. With this in mind network equipment OSes are certainly not popular ones. Nevertheless there are probably lots of less popular OSes with less popular kernels that are designed with security in mind. Some of them are probably good tries at such a goal. They could be used and extended and it would be probably better securitywise, because of years of bug fixes, that no new OS can have.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoTo support your point, the company below did a clean-slate OS tightly integrated with hardware protection features of Itanium CPU's to give people hell trying to compromise their DNS servers. Also re-did the networking stack to assume a hostile instead of benign network. Way over due there. The OS is available for licensing IIRC but OEM's don't give a shit about security if dollars are on the line. ;) http://www.secure64.com/secure-operating-system http://www.secure64.com/secure-operating-system An older one that was pentested by the NSA with positive results reduced attack surface by using PPC embedded board, INTEGRITY microkernel, and carefully-coded state machines. That a small team made this shows both the big companies and startups could be doing way better if they cared. http://www.sentinelsecurity.us/HYDRA/hydra.html http://www.sentinelsecurity.us/HYDRA/hydra.html