3 ms·
In a past life, I pushed hard for more investment in seL4 for certain defense applications. The nuance isn't to be underestimated though – I can say from experi
by verberant 6y ago
In a past life, I pushed hard for more investment in seL4 for certain defense applications. The nuance isn't to be underestimated though – I can say from experience that it's often a hard sell to folks that aren't already versed in the ins and outs of formal methods, security, kernels/operating systems, etc. There are plenty of lower hanging fruit (like networking hardware) than the applications I worked on, yet commercial adoption still seems low. Maybe this is due to that nuance. To the credit of the folks at Trustworthy Systems and UNSW, they've done a great job producing literature that outlines the business case in a manner palatable to decision makers. This paper [0] in particular came in handy to me many times.
[0] https://ts.data61.csiro.au/publications/csiro_full_text/Klein_AKMHF_18.pdf https://ts.data61.csiro.au/publications/csiro_full_text/Klei...
- kjs3 6y agoWe had very similar 'discussions' about using Ada (or other 'safe' language) and/or TCSEC rated systems for security sensitive systems in the 80s and 90s. With abundant rationales for why that was a good idea. We've ended up with (mostly) C/C++ and COTS OSes, hopefully dressed up with a STIG (or similar) to close the really blatant holes. I don't think the market has reached the point where the overhead of these technologies has been offset by the pain of endless security incidents. I don't even think we're close to being willing to take on a 'better way (YMMV)' instead of 'move fast and break things (no matter the cost to the consumer)'.