4 ms·
I think every major OS kernel (Windows NT, Linux, Darwin) actually has optional sophisticated security capabilities these days. I think the problem is that it's
by TazeTSchnitzel 5y ago
I think every major OS kernel (Windows NT, Linux, Darwin) actually has optional sophisticated security capabilities these days. I think the problem is that it's really hard to make these work nicely with legacy software? The whole classic UNIX-ish model sort of falls apart.
- staticassertion 5y agoI assume by capabilities they mean specifically a capabilities-based security model.
- colonwqbang 5y agoWell, doesn't Linux have that? Maybe you could go into more detail about what you feel is missing today.
- staticassertion 5y agoWhat linux calls capabilities is a misnomer that isn't particularly effective - it's sort of splitting root up into smaller pieces. This is totally different from the actual capabilities security model, which is closer to a "if you can name a resource you can access that resource". So, for example, imagine every file on your system has a path with a uuid, and there is no "ls" - you'd only be able to access files whose names had been told to you/ that you created yourself. That's a capabilities model, and Linux does not have that.