4 ms·

The problem with Xen is that no major industry player is backing it, especially with Amazon going KVM now. (disclaimer: working at Google on virtualization sec

by xyzzyz 9y ago

The problem with Xen is that no major industry player is backing it, especially with Amazon going KVM now. (disclaimer: working at Google on virtualization security)

pjmlp 9y ago
What about Cisco?
- gggvvh 9y ago
  What about an Indian company selling overpriced market-segmented-to-hell shit?
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    I don't know, doing business like every other major IT company?
- walterbell 9y ago
  Where does Cisco use Xen?
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    It has common products with Citrix for Citrix XenServer, https://blogs.cisco.com/datacenter/citrix-synergy-round-up-cisco-previews-nexus-1000v-on-xenserver https://blogs.cisco.com/datacenter/citrix-synergy-round-up-c...
ryacko 9y ago
Any chance Google will sponsor secure processor architecture standards? I mean, the US government no doubt had influence on the Trusted Computing Group (too bad the EFF totally shunned it), and through the magic of product binning and chip fab costs, we all have trusted platform modules. ASLR currently seems wimpy. I'm certain you are in a position to accomplish a great deal, no matter where you are in the hierarchy. Maybe the future is x86 hardware emulation for user mode processes.
- standupstandup 9y ago
  It's Intel pushing that stuff forward, with SGX.
  - ryacko 9y ago
    Then from recent Defcon and Black Hat talks, they are an absymal failure. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR0nh-TdpVg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR0nh-TdpVg Memory Sinkhole - Unleashing An X86 Design Flaw Allowing Universal Privilege Escalation ) (I don't understand it beyond what everyone says it can achieve) Intel should be considered to be totally unreliable and incompetent. I mean, no one buys office store safes and expects their things to be secure in them. But a processor is a little more expensive than a cheap safe and holds more valuable things. Edit: and besides, Fortezza is an SSL protocol option.
    - standupstandup 9y ago
      SGX is designed to shield software against SMM exploits.
    - ryacko 9y ago
      >SGX is designed to shield software against SMM exploits. Perhaps if we add one more thing, x86 will finally be secure. You are right, Intel should be left to their own devices.
      - hateduser2 9y ago
        Seems like you replied to the wrong comment, the intended parent might not see your reply because of this.. probably should repost it in the right place
        ryacko 9y ago
        Hmm. I thought comment chains were limited in length.
antod 9y ago
I was under the (possibly outdated) impression that Amazon wasn't really backing Xen much anyway, so AWS changing hypervisors might not mean much to Xen anyway. I haven't used Xen for a while, but seemed to recall that Amazon forked it way back in the 3.x days and had been doing their own incompatible thing with it since then. Corrections welcome of course :)

by xyzzyz 9y ago

The problem with Xen is that no major industry player is backing it, especially with Amazon going KVM now. (disclaimer: working at Google on virtualization security)

pjmlp 9y ago

What about Cisco?

gggvvh 9y ago
What about an Indian company selling overpriced market-segmented-to-hell shit?
- pjmlp 9y ago
  I don't know, doing business like every other major IT company?
walterbell 9y ago
Where does Cisco use Xen?
- pjmlp 9y ago
  It has common products with Citrix for Citrix XenServer, https://blogs.cisco.com/datacenter/citrix-synergy-round-up-cisco-previews-nexus-1000v-on-xenserver https://blogs.cisco.com/datacenter/citrix-synergy-round-up-c...

ryacko 9y ago

Any chance Google will sponsor secure processor architecture standards? I mean, the US government no doubt had influence on the Trusted Computing Group (too bad the EFF totally shunned it), and through the magic of product binning and chip fab costs, we all have trusted platform modules. ASLR currently seems wimpy. I'm certain you are in a position to accomplish a great deal, no matter where you are in the hierarchy. Maybe the future is x86 hardware emulation for user mode processes.

standupstandup 9y ago
It's Intel pushing that stuff forward, with SGX.
- ryacko 9y ago
  Then from recent Defcon and Black Hat talks, they are an absymal failure. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR0nh-TdpVg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR0nh-TdpVg Memory Sinkhole - Unleashing An X86 Design Flaw Allowing Universal Privilege Escalation ) (I don't understand it beyond what everyone says it can achieve) Intel should be considered to be totally unreliable and incompetent. I mean, no one buys office store safes and expects their things to be secure in them. But a processor is a little more expensive than a cheap safe and holds more valuable things. Edit: and besides, Fortezza is an SSL protocol option.
  - standupstandup 9y ago
    SGX is designed to shield software against SMM exploits.
  - ryacko 9y ago
    >SGX is designed to shield software against SMM exploits. Perhaps if we add one more thing, x86 will finally be secure. You are right, Intel should be left to their own devices.
    - hateduser2 9y ago
      Seems like you replied to the wrong comment, the intended parent might not see your reply because of this.. probably should repost it in the right place
      - ryacko 9y ago
        Hmm. I thought comment chains were limited in length.

antod 9y ago

I was under the (possibly outdated) impression that Amazon wasn't really backing Xen much anyway, so AWS changing hypervisors might not mean much to Xen anyway. I haven't used Xen for a while, but seemed to recall that Amazon forked it way back in the 3.x days and had been doing their own incompatible thing with it since then. Corrections welcome of course :)