←back to thread

276 points chei0aiV | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.236s | source
Show context
kragen ◴[] No.10458647[source]
Probably worth pointing out that the author is the project lead of Qubes, one of the very few promising projects in the vast wasteland of computer security.
replies(2): >>10459513 #>>10459645 #
kachnuv_ocasek ◴[] No.10459645[source]
Very few? Seriously?
replies(4): >>10459760 #>>10459957 #>>10460536 #>>10461036 #
1. nickpsecurity ◴[] No.10461036[source]
I totally agree with him that the vast majority of INFOSEC products are a waste. Just take any of them and compare them to the risks in my enumeration. Also, note what pre-requisites for security their development processes have vs that list. You'll find the most projects are to secure computing what night is to day. ;)

http://pastebin.com/y3PufJ0V

I critiqued QubesOS in the past over re-inventing the wheel and on a highly insecure platform. Her recent write-up supports my critique more than ever. Regardless, they're at least doing something with provable benefit and high usability on a platform with proven benefit, both of which can be further secured or extended by others. An exception to the rule of mainstream INFOSEC where the sense of security is almost entirely false as no effort is taken to address TCB.

The only project in this space leveraging best practices in TCB or architecture is GenodeOS. They're doing what I suggested QubesOS do a while back: build on all proven, low-TCB techniques in academia. Main critique I had of them is they're too flexible and need to focus on a single stack long enough to get it working solidly like Qubes team did. They stay building on and integrating the better stuff out of L4 family of security engineering research, though.