4 ms·

I can see why people would assume that open source is a big security risk, but how deep does your head have to be buried in sand for you to think that Windows (

I can see why people would assume that open source is a big security risk, but how deep does your head have to be buried in sand for you to think that Windows (which, AFAIK, is the only other OS often used in large government systems like this) has not been open to infection?

freehunter 13y ago
Who says that Windows is not open to infection? All that was stated is that Linux is open to infection. There's no implication that using another popular OS would have been a better choice.
- AmVess 13y ago
  Well if they used Windows, at least we'd occasionally get free ISS parts showing up in our backyards. FTR: I'm a Windows user.
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  Agreed, but it was still quite disingenuous of them to say that Linux was the specific reason they were open to infection. The fact that the space station has computers and ways to connect to those computers means there's a chance of infection.
  - freehunter 13y ago
    Viruses are harder to implement on custom software, though. Perhaps the ISS should have used a custom OS to protect against malware? Popular off-the-shelf software is going to be targeted before an in-house and not-publicly-documented piece of software.
    - hrkristian 13y ago
      Building an OS from the ground up would take a lot of money and manpower, and NASA aren't exactly rolling in cash nowadays. And while yes, in-house software would be safe against most existing malware, and general malware, ISS would not be safe from direct attacks. Those are the real threat anyway...
      - freehunter 13y ago
        VxWorks is pretty popular with space agencies (NASA uses it, as well as SpaceX. Curiosity and Dragon both run VxWorks RTOS). It has a 64-bit mode for Intel processors, runs on HRFS, DOSFS, and NFS, has IPv6 built in, and is POSIX compliant. While direct attacks are a real threat, I don't see anywhere saying this was a direct attack. Not using an off-the-shelf OS could have mitigated the attack if it wasn't a direct attack.

freehunter 13y ago

Who says that Windows is not open to infection? All that was stated is that Linux is open to infection. There's no implication that using another popular OS would have been a better choice.

AmVess 13y ago
Well if they used Windows, at least we'd occasionally get free ISS parts showing up in our backyards. FTR: I'm a Windows user.
TallGuyShort 13y ago
Agreed, but it was still quite disingenuous of them to say that Linux was the specific reason they were open to infection. The fact that the space station has computers and ways to connect to those computers means there's a chance of infection.
- freehunter 13y ago
  Viruses are harder to implement on custom software, though. Perhaps the ISS should have used a custom OS to protect against malware? Popular off-the-shelf software is going to be targeted before an in-house and not-publicly-documented piece of software.
  - hrkristian 13y ago
    Building an OS from the ground up would take a lot of money and manpower, and NASA aren't exactly rolling in cash nowadays. And while yes, in-house software would be safe against most existing malware, and general malware, ISS would not be safe from direct attacks. Those are the real threat anyway...
    - freehunter 13y ago
      VxWorks is pretty popular with space agencies (NASA uses it, as well as SpaceX. Curiosity and Dragon both run VxWorks RTOS). It has a 64-bit mode for Intel processors, runs on HRFS, DOSFS, and NFS, has IPv6 built in, and is POSIX compliant. While direct attacks are a real threat, I don't see anywhere saying this was a direct attack. Not using an off-the-shelf OS could have mitigated the attack if it wasn't a direct attack.