6 ms·

Perhaps cool factor is not their goal ;)

by Klover 8y ago

snvzz 8y ago
If security is their goal, even more so. Linux can't be made secure for a very simple reason: The kernel is huge, and all of it runs in supervisor mode.
- agumonkey 8y ago
  perfectionnism vs pragmatism ? Maybe making a full fledged sel4 OS would take years ... I don't know.
  - akavel 8y ago
    It is rather: security vs. non-security. Pragmatism pulls in the non-security direction. When security people see "Linux-based", they already know the thing is situated at some particular point on the scale, or worse. Linux has big TCB surface, so it's intrinsically hard to secure.
    - snvzz 8y ago
      >hard to secure. Is an understatement. It can't be made secure without rewriting the kernel using a proper system architecture, and then it isn't Linux anymore.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        Should have a look at Linux Security Summit 2018, lots of work still pending.
        snvzz 8y ago
        Won't solve the fundamental issue.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        That is the whole point I am making, it isn't there regarding being a secure kernel.
        snvzz 8y ago
        >it isn't there regarding being a secure kernel. It won't ever be there without a rewrite with a microkernel architecture. Which realistically won't happen. So, it won't ever be.
    - agumonkey 8y ago
      If you produce no secure OS you have no security. I understand your point of view but you gotta keep some realism in mind.
      - akavel 8y ago
        Sure, one can roll on the ground hoping to get to a slightly higher place ("making Linux more secure"), or one can dig a hole, put up a foundation (L4, Genode, etc. etc.) and build a tower on it. Rolling on the floor is sure easier and provides a sensation of movement ("yay, we have something 'practical', another Linux-based distro! look, we've spent a lot of effort and careful direction planning to roll a few cm/inches higher!"). But as for "realism", which is more realistic: to roll on the ground hoping to get higher, or to build something more difficult which can really get one higher? If I see "Linux-based secure OS", I think of the rolling, and think "right, they maybe got a bit higher, hope they didn't break something unexpected by virtue of spaghetti interactions and actually fell into a hole"; also, there's most probably still a lot of bugs in Linux kernel they didn't know of so couldn't secure. So maybe they even didn't get that much higher they thought they did. But even assuming they really improved a bit and didn't break nothing, they sure didn't get to a tower height.

Perhaps cool factor is not their goal ;)

by Klover 8y ago

Perhaps cool factor is not their goal ;)

If security is their goal, even more so. Linux can't be made secure for a very simple reason: The kernel is huge, and all of it runs in supervisor mode.

agumonkey 8y ago
perfectionnism vs pragmatism ? Maybe making a full fledged sel4 OS would take years ... I don't know.
- akavel 8y ago
  It is rather: security vs. non-security. Pragmatism pulls in the non-security direction. When security people see "Linux-based", they already know the thing is situated at some particular point on the scale, or worse. Linux has big TCB surface, so it's intrinsically hard to secure.
  - snvzz 8y ago
    >hard to secure. Is an understatement. It can't be made secure without rewriting the kernel using a proper system architecture, and then it isn't Linux anymore.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Should have a look at Linux Security Summit 2018, lots of work still pending.
      - snvzz 8y ago
        Won't solve the fundamental issue.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        That is the whole point I am making, it isn't there regarding being a secure kernel.
        snvzz 8y ago
        >it isn't there regarding being a secure kernel. It won't ever be there without a rewrite with a microkernel architecture. Which realistically won't happen. So, it won't ever be.
  - agumonkey 8y ago
    If you produce no secure OS you have no security. I understand your point of view but you gotta keep some realism in mind.
    - akavel 8y ago
      Sure, one can roll on the ground hoping to get to a slightly higher place ("making Linux more secure"), or one can dig a hole, put up a foundation (L4, Genode, etc. etc.) and build a tower on it. Rolling on the floor is sure easier and provides a sensation of movement ("yay, we have something 'practical', another Linux-based distro! look, we've spent a lot of effort and careful direction planning to roll a few cm/inches higher!"). But as for "realism", which is more realistic: to roll on the ground hoping to get higher, or to build something more difficult which can really get one higher? If I see "Linux-based secure OS", I think of the rolling, and think "right, they maybe got a bit higher, hope they didn't break something unexpected by virtue of spaghetti interactions and actually fell into a hole"; also, there's most probably still a lot of bugs in Linux kernel they didn't know of so couldn't secure. So maybe they even didn't get that much higher they thought they did. But even assuming they really improved a bit and didn't break nothing, they sure didn't get to a tower height.