4 ms·

> Raytheon is converting the VTUAV TCS “block II” system from Sun’s aging, UNIX-based Solaris 8 OS to a “B2VL” version of Linux. I wonder what this B2VL versio

by notfoss 12y ago

> Raytheon is converting the VTUAV TCS “block II” system from Sun’s aging, UNIX-based Solaris 8 OS to a “B2VL” version of Linux. I wonder what this B2VL version of Linux is. Also, it seems that USA is going full steam ahead with Linux adoption, what with NASA switching to Debian and similar stories. I wonder if it gives credibility to the (conspiracy) theories by some that Linux is systematically being made weaker by government agencies.[1][2] [1]: https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/julian-assange-debian-is-owned-by-the-nsa/ https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/julian-assange-de... [2]: https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/biography-of-a-cypherpunk-and-how-cryptography-affects-your-life/ https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/biography-of-a-cy...

Perdition 12y ago
Why would the government migrate to an OS they are making weaker? If Linux was banned from use in critical systems that might lend credibility to that conspiracy theory, Linux being used in sensitive systems destroys any credibility that theory has.
- dagw 12y ago
  If you want to go full on conspiracy, then you'd point out that perhaps all those critical systems are running a secret NSA branch of Linux, was all the backdoors removed and unannounced security holes patched.
- weland 12y ago
  Linux is a generic-enough name that you might actually be running a well-rigged flavour while they aren't.
- AlexLord 12y ago
  You're talking about the US government as if it is a single entity with a consistent driving motive. There's no reason that one section could (accidentally or intentionally) do damage to another section.
kev009 12y ago
Well, you wouldn't want to weaken your own systems too much. If you know about a vuln, others can know about a vuln, and those others could easily be 'the enemy'. The main credibility I could see in the general claim is encouraging over-complexity and insecure defaults. These can be worked around yourself and lend a high degree of plausible deniability. But even then, your own kind (fellow government departments) are generally all kinds of incompetent and would fall victim to your traps so I just couldn't see how this would not backfire worse than it ever helped. Counter intel folks would be enraged.
- notfoss 12y ago
  > The main credibility I could see in the general claim is encouraging over-complexity and insecure defaults. This is the thing which concerns me the most. The simplicity is being deprecated in favor of over-engineering. > These can be worked around yourself and lend a high degree of plausible deniability. Exactly. I am still not able to digest that the heartbleed vulnerability was an innocent mistake. > But even then, your own kind (fellow government departments) are generally all kinds of incompetent and would fall victim to your traps so I just couldn't see how this would not backfire worse than it ever helped. Counter intel folks would be enraged. This can be easily bypassed using a hardened version of Linux.

by notfoss 12y ago

Perdition 12y ago

Why would the government migrate to an OS they are making weaker? If Linux was banned from use in critical systems that might lend credibility to that conspiracy theory, Linux being used in sensitive systems destroys any credibility that theory has.

dagw 12y ago
If you want to go full on conspiracy, then you'd point out that perhaps all those critical systems are running a secret NSA branch of Linux, was all the backdoors removed and unannounced security holes patched.
weland 12y ago
Linux is a generic-enough name that you might actually be running a well-rigged flavour while they aren't.
AlexLord 12y ago
You're talking about the US government as if it is a single entity with a consistent driving motive. There's no reason that one section could (accidentally or intentionally) do damage to another section.

kev009 12y ago

Well, you wouldn't want to weaken your own systems too much. If you know about a vuln, others can know about a vuln, and those others could easily be 'the enemy'. The main credibility I could see in the general claim is encouraging over-complexity and insecure defaults. These can be worked around yourself and lend a high degree of plausible deniability. But even then, your own kind (fellow government departments) are generally all kinds of incompetent and would fall victim to your traps so I just couldn't see how this would not backfire worse than it ever helped. Counter intel folks would be enraged.

notfoss 12y ago
> The main credibility I could see in the general claim is encouraging over-complexity and insecure defaults. This is the thing which concerns me the most. The simplicity is being deprecated in favor of over-engineering. > These can be worked around yourself and lend a high degree of plausible deniability. Exactly. I am still not able to digest that the heartbleed vulnerability was an innocent mistake. > But even then, your own kind (fellow government departments) are generally all kinds of incompetent and would fall victim to your traps so I just couldn't see how this would not backfire worse than it ever helped. Counter intel folks would be enraged. This can be easily bypassed using a hardened version of Linux.