|
Off-Topic Everything else. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||
LinuxCon 2015 - Linus says "I’m sure we could do better" on kernel security
Quote:
Even with my very limited experience of this, it seems like this equates to proper code auditing not really being possible because there's 'too much code' to audit? With most of the Linux kernel being drivers, you have to wonder what percentage of those drivers are unmaintained and supporting long dead hardware which 99.999% are not using? |
|
|||
You can manually configure Linux kernel before compiling it. I even have measured time of compiling kernel with default config (I don't remember if this config is from upstream or some distro) and configured by hand for my laptop.
First option compiled in 4033 seconds, second 337 seconds. Of course maybe there still be some hooks in various places for drivers etc, which will be compiled in. |
|
||||
25 million lines of code
I did not even imagine the kernel was so large. Quote:
|
|
||||
Well it's a viable assumption that the code base will simply continue to grow as, despite how many developers are involved and the amount of corporate money thrown at it, it's just too "hard" for people to do security audits, let alone remove redundant code, unsupported drivers, etc.
It's more like a case of it being too far gone and too complex and perhaps there are parts of the code which no one really understands any more on account of the open development model (e.g. there are people or groups of people who made commits, possibly over 10 years ago, who no longer work on the project)? From a security perspective that doesn't sound too good. |
|
|||
For most use cases (Threat model) Gnu/Linux is reasonably secure if someone doesn't do stupid things and update it frequently. Every human action have associated probability of failure, operating systems are not exceptions.
Formal verification of an OS microkernel should be an ideal, but I don't know whether any operating system based on f.v. microkernel for desktop use-cases exists. For me OpenBSD is good balance between ideally secure OS and functionality. |
|
||||
Quote:
In case you missed it: Quote:
In my view this is just yet another "get out", as with: http://www.cio.com/article/2434264/o...-monkeys-.html (though perhaps a little more subtle this time around) Opinion: Torvalds has pretty much chosen to do nothing at all with regards to kernel security and left it to third parties, i.e. a reactive approach rather than a proactive one. There wasn't really a security model in the first place, so retroactively implementing that is not easy - and of course discrediting "security people" is easier. |
|
||||
A new, controversial*, Washington Post article on the same subject: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/bus...-the-argument/
The article is typical tech press and I'm not exactly a fan of this periodical or style of journalism, but it raises many points on Linus' dismissive arrogance towards "crazy" "security people" and reckless attitude towards security features. *fanbois are up in arms |
|
|||
I'd love to get by on only FreeBSD or OpenBSD, but I simply don't have the patience, thus for me, I use a friendly version of Linux, and use OpenBSD in a virtual machine. Seems like a reasonable compromise.
|
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
When you see a good move, look for a better one. --Lasker |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Difference between"arp info overwritten" and " duplicate IP address " | varag | OpenBSD Security | 1 | 6th April 2015 02:57 PM |
"the OpenBSD kernel will only recognize 3.1 gig of RAM"? | hanzer | OpenBSD General | 8 | 20th January 2015 06:48 PM |
Blog article "Security: OpenBSD VS FreeBSD" | gkbsd | OpenBSD Security | 11 | 13th January 2015 11:48 PM |
Fixed "xinit" after _7 _8, "how" here in case anyones' "X" breaks... using "nvidia" | jb_daefo | Guides | 0 | 5th October 2009 09:31 PM |
New Kernel: "make depend" doesn't work | nihonto | NetBSD General | 9 | 23rd January 2009 09:02 PM |