Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.linux > #39276
| From | Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.os.linux |
| Subject | Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? |
| Date | 2016-09-27 09:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e4vjj0Fao1jU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <4svkubl9fpf4fut5tq8chgg6pqbtut0clt@net.com> <e4vidrFaf0kU1@mid.individual.net> <nse4ii$lf2$2@news.albasani.net> |
Melzzzzz wrote: > Mike Easter wrote: >> Yrrah wrote: >>> And now explained to the unitiated? ;-) >> >> Drivers in the kernel is a HUGE problem. > > What does this means? The presentation covered by Ars doesn't provide any direction to a solution. >> Where is the Tanenbaum crowd when we need them? >> >> http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/reliable-os/ Tanenbaum-Torvalds Debate: Part >> II - (2006 May) >> > Microkernel lost it's attraction as it is slow. What we have today are > actually hybrids... Dangerous LKM modules. Even with all of the loadable modules unloaded, the monolithic kernel is 'vast', not really resembling anything like a 'self-healing' micro or nano kernel used for some secure purposes. The DoD sez; "The TCB shall [implement] complete, conceptually simple protection mechanisms with precisely defined semantics. Significant system engineering shall be directed toward minimizing the complexity of the TCB, as well as excluding from the TCB those modules that are not protection-critical." ... where TCB = trusted computing base which of course includes/is the kernel and whatever danger is hidden inside. -- Mike Easter
Back to alt.os.linux | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
"Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? Yrrah <Yrrah-aol@aol.invalid> - 2016-09-27 16:28 +0200
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? jrg <connyank@cox.net> - 2016-09-27 08:25 -0700
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2016-09-27 08:43 -0700
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-27 15:51 +0000
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2016-09-27 09:03 -0700
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2016-09-27 18:26 +0200
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2016-09-27 09:35 -0700
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-27 16:43 +0000
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-09-28 06:59 -0400
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-27 16:42 +0000
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-27 18:53 +0200
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? stepore <linshine@here.now> - 2016-09-27 21:07 -0700
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-09-28 07:36 -0400
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-09-28 10:28 +0000
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-09-28 10:55 +0000
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2016-09-27 08:53 -0700
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-09-27 12:39 -0400
Re: "Linux kernel security needs a rethink" ? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-09-28 06:56 -0400
csiph-web