4 ms·

> Did you know about this previously? Then why did you lie previously claiming there have been no escapes? Yes, I knew. In the context of this article, we are

> Did you know about this previously? Then why did you lie previously claiming there have been no escapes? Yes, I knew. In the context of this article, we are talking here about the currently supported Qubes release (4.2), which implemented the new virtualization mechanism. The latter was not broken in your links, or anywhere else after 2006. It's not a design goal but actually working implementation at present. > "virtually impossible" in this context means it needs to be proof against state actors First of all, nothing is 100% proof against state actors, because they can use completely different attack vectors. I just believe that the VM escape attack vector is extremely unlikely in this case, and I rely on the lack of known escapes to make this conclusion, which should have been clear from my comments.

Veserv 3y ago
Point to literally anybody on the development team who claims it can stop a small team of professionals with a 10 M$ budget from finding a remote exploit. That is a tiny fraction of what a state actor can deploy and constitutes at best a low-end attack by a state actor who is actually targeting you. Just for reference, we can peg that at a first-order estimate of 40,000 person-hours or about 20 person-years, so a team of 20 with a whole calendar year to work full-time on finding a remote exploit. Even the developers themselves do not think they can provide protection against such low-end attacks. I mean, seriously, find me a single person in the entire world doing offensive cybersecurity research who thinks there is any system in the entire world that can stop any team with a 10 M$ budget. Find me any single person in the entire world doing cybersecurity that would place a open bet that they could stop any team with a 10 M$ payout. I am certain you would be laughed out of the room in the former, and you would see dollar signs in their eyes if you introduced them to the latter. Stop propagating marketing fluff. That is not to say that Qubes is horribly insecure. It is just not even close to "virtually impossible to break". And, to their credit, they are honest and very clear about this in their messaging and should be applauded for it unlike actual bad actors like Crowdstrike, Microsoft, Apple, Palo Alto Networks, Google, Sentinel One, (basically everybody) etc. who just make up whatever security bullshit to push product. It, however, does no good to make up random hyperbole with no basis in fact for products that are actually being careful to not overpromise. Frankly, it is doing the team at Qubes a disservice because people will hear the nonsense and then get burned and blame Qubes even though they were careful to honestly express the limitations.
- fsflover 3y ago
  Fair enough.

Veserv 3y ago

Point to literally anybody on the development team who claims it can stop a small team of professionals with a 10 M$ budget from finding a remote exploit. That is a tiny fraction of what a state actor can deploy and constitutes at best a low-end attack by a state actor who is actually targeting you. Just for reference, we can peg that at a first-order estimate of 40,000 person-hours or about 20 person-years, so a team of 20 with a whole calendar year to work full-time on finding a remote exploit. Even the developers themselves do not think they can provide protection against such low-end attacks. I mean, seriously, find me a single person in the entire world doing offensive cybersecurity research who thinks there is any system in the entire world that can stop any team with a 10 M$ budget. Find me any single person in the entire world doing cybersecurity that would place a open bet that they could stop any team with a 10 M$ payout. I am certain you would be laughed out of the room in the former, and you would see dollar signs in their eyes if you introduced them to the latter. Stop propagating marketing fluff. That is not to say that Qubes is horribly insecure. It is just not even close to "virtually impossible to break". And, to their credit, they are honest and very clear about this in their messaging and should be applauded for it unlike actual bad actors like Crowdstrike, Microsoft, Apple, Palo Alto Networks, Google, Sentinel One, (basically everybody) etc. who just make up whatever security bullshit to push product. It, however, does no good to make up random hyperbole with no basis in fact for products that are actually being careful to not overpromise. Frankly, it is doing the team at Qubes a disservice because people will hear the nonsense and then get burned and blame Qubes even though they were careful to honestly express the limitations.

fsflover 3y ago
Fair enough.