4 ms·

This is a Linux distribution with some clever ideas about container isolation and using the PAX / grsecurity kernel patchset. Since it is running Linux, not so

by SEJeff 12y ago

This is a Linux distribution with some clever ideas about container isolation and using the PAX / grsecurity kernel patchset. Since it is running Linux, not some minimal RTOS, I take some of their marketing on the website with a huge grain of salt. When it says things like, "verifiably trustworthy" and is a Linux distribution, it makes baby Brad Spengler (Spender) cry. Call me a skeptic, but I'm currently using Linux, professionally have managed Linux for over a decade, and <3 it entirely. That being said, I call BS on a Linux distribution that claims what this does. Great marketing page however! Written from my Fedora 20 laptop with SELinux enabled and my tinfoil anti-NSA hat on

rsync 12y ago
I would be more enthusiastic about a "trustworthy" and "hardened" distribution with "container isolation" if it were BSD based with jails (among other things). A simpler system, with fewer moving parts, and contributions (perhaps) from cperciva ?
- mwcampbell 12y ago
  Why BSD over Linux? And which BSD would you start with? I'd stay far away from SELinux, knowing that added complexity is unlikely to add security in practice. But is any of the major BSD kernels appreciably simpler or more secure than the Linux kernel these days? I'm sure that the Linux kernel has broader hardware support; that would yield an OS that more people can actually run without restricting their hardware choices. So on balance, Linux seems to me like a better choice. To be sure, I'd strip down the userland, starting with the C library; I'd choose musl over glibc. Actually, my idea of a "trustworthy", "hardened" Linux distro would look a lot like Alpine Linux (the in-development musl-based version).
  - na85 12y ago
    Truthfully it's the kernel rather than userland I'd be more concerned about. It might be open-source but it's an enormous piece of software. Heartbleed showed us that serious vulns can slip through, and AFAIK the kernel hasn't had a truecrypt-style security audit (which I believe it deserves). I don't think BSD is necessarily more secure, despite what that Theo blowhard has to say.
- stusmall 12y ago
  I'm curious, what is the security advantage of BSD jails over Linux containers?
  - SEJeff 12y ago
    None really, other than they have been around a lot longer and have potential to have been audited by more people. That being said, a lot more people look at Linux code and work on it than all of the BSDs combined, so it is really a wash.
- SEJeff 12y ago
  I'd see you as a bit misguided then. Different than Linux != more secure. The best way would be isolation using hardware's VT functionality. That enforced separation at the hardware level. Something more like this. Also, the xen microkernel is very small in comparison to Linux and easier to audit. http://qubes-os.org http://qubes-os.org

by SEJeff 12y ago

rsync 12y ago

I would be more enthusiastic about a "trustworthy" and "hardened" distribution with "container isolation" if it were BSD based with jails (among other things). A simpler system, with fewer moving parts, and contributions (perhaps) from cperciva ?

mwcampbell 12y ago
Why BSD over Linux? And which BSD would you start with? I'd stay far away from SELinux, knowing that added complexity is unlikely to add security in practice. But is any of the major BSD kernels appreciably simpler or more secure than the Linux kernel these days? I'm sure that the Linux kernel has broader hardware support; that would yield an OS that more people can actually run without restricting their hardware choices. So on balance, Linux seems to me like a better choice. To be sure, I'd strip down the userland, starting with the C library; I'd choose musl over glibc. Actually, my idea of a "trustworthy", "hardened" Linux distro would look a lot like Alpine Linux (the in-development musl-based version).
- na85 12y ago
  Truthfully it's the kernel rather than userland I'd be more concerned about. It might be open-source but it's an enormous piece of software. Heartbleed showed us that serious vulns can slip through, and AFAIK the kernel hasn't had a truecrypt-style security audit (which I believe it deserves). I don't think BSD is necessarily more secure, despite what that Theo blowhard has to say.
stusmall 12y ago
I'm curious, what is the security advantage of BSD jails over Linux containers?
- SEJeff 12y ago
  None really, other than they have been around a lot longer and have potential to have been audited by more people. That being said, a lot more people look at Linux code and work on it than all of the BSDs combined, so it is really a wash.
SEJeff 12y ago
I'd see you as a bit misguided then. Different than Linux != more secure. The best way would be isolation using hardware's VT functionality. That enforced separation at the hardware level. Something more like this. Also, the xen microkernel is very small in comparison to Linux and easier to audit. http://qubes-os.org http://qubes-os.org