4 ms·

I don't like the architecture because it looks like a set of ugly hacks. You don't need virtual machines to isolate applications because CPU already has a sandb

I don't like the architecture because it looks like a set of ugly hacks. You don't need virtual machines to isolate applications because CPU already has a sandbox provided by protected mode. The problem is that legacy OS like Linux/Mac/Windows are unable to use this sandbox effectively. For example, here [1] they show a separate VM for the USB stack. But why do you need it if you can simply run USB stack in protected mode? Also, I assume that running so many VMs requires a lot of drive space and hurts performance. [1] https://www.qubes-os.org/intro/ https://www.qubes-os.org/intro/

fsflover 4y ago
> I don't like the architecture because it looks like a set of ugly hacks. It's not a set of hacks. You simply isolate your workflows using a hardware virtualization, transparently to the user. > You don't need virtual machines to isolate applications because CPU already has a sandbox provided by protected mode. What exactly do you mean? Qubes uses VT-d hardware virtualization. AFAIK it's the most secure compartmentalization method, and you can't use it without VMs. > But why do you need it if you can simply run USB stack in protected mode? On how many lines of code do you rely in "protected mode"? On Qubes, you assign the devices to VMs, hide them from the dom0, so they can't attack it. It relies on Xen, one of the most tested piece of software with a small Trusted Computing Base. See this: https://www.qubes-os.org/faq/#why-does-qubes-use-xen-instead-of-kvm-or-some-other-hypervisor https://www.qubes-os.org/faq/#why-does-qubes-use-xen-instead.... > Also, I assume that running so many VMs requires a lot of drive space and hurts performance. You need a lot of RAM, if you want to run a lot of VMs simultaneously. But you don't have to. CPU performance should not be affected much. Drive space is saved by using TemplateVMs (which provide root partition to other VMs): https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/templates/ https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/templates/.

fsflover 4y ago

> I don't like the architecture because it looks like a set of ugly hacks. It's not a set of hacks. You simply isolate your workflows using a hardware virtualization, transparently to the user. > You don't need virtual machines to isolate applications because CPU already has a sandbox provided by protected mode. What exactly do you mean? Qubes uses VT-d hardware virtualization. AFAIK it's the most secure compartmentalization method, and you can't use it without VMs. > But why do you need it if you can simply run USB stack in protected mode? On how many lines of code do you rely in "protected mode"? On Qubes, you assign the devices to VMs, hide them from the dom0, so they can't attack it. It relies on Xen, one of the most tested piece of software with a small Trusted Computing Base. See this: https://www.qubes-os.org/faq/#why-does-qubes-use-xen-instead-of-kvm-or-some-other-hypervisor https://www.qubes-os.org/faq/#why-does-qubes-use-xen-instead.... > Also, I assume that running so many VMs requires a lot of drive space and hurts performance. You need a lot of RAM, if you want to run a lot of VMs simultaneously. But you don't have to. CPU performance should not be affected much. Drive space is saved by using TemplateVMs (which provide root partition to other VMs): https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/templates/ https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/templates/.