4 ms·
I wish it had stuck. In a related vein, I idly wonder if there's a project around intended to bring useful security to a practical Unix derivative. Nobody uses
by jfb 14y ago
I wish it had stuck.
In a related vein, I idly wonder if there's a project around intended to bring useful security to a practical Unix derivative. Nobody uses a big timesharing box any longer (for all reasonable definitions of nobody); and the protections mooted to keep "users" away from "wheel" are basically pointless and counterproductive in a world where attacks come from outside. Apple's code-signing is one reaction to this new reality; what's the current status of capability based systems?
- stonnyfrogs 14y agoah. You don't seem understand plan 9 OR capabilities. Cool.
- deno 14y agoYou can do quite a bit in Linux with CGroups and SELinux. Projects making good use of those are Fedora, Systemd and Chromium browser.
- jfb 14y agoI'll check it out. Next up, doing away with POSIX.
- jff 14y agoPOSIX defines a pretty good framework, which is why Plan 9 is POSIX-ish. They changed things that they thought needed improvement. I just wanted to point out that doing away with POSIX merely to do away with POSIX isn't necessarily wise; if you don't have a better idea to use instead, you'll just end up reimplementing much of POSIX under another name.
- wmf 14y agohttp://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/capsicum/ http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/capsicum/
- rbanffy 14y ago> the protections mooted to keep "users" away from "wheel" are basically pointless and counterproductive in a world where attacks come from outside. Attacks may come from the outside, but they usually exploit code running on the target. IIRC, Apparmor is an implementation of what you seek - an easy way to limit what any given executable can do, in addition to what its process credentials can do.