RE: [Full-Disclosure] [Paper] Designing secure desktop operating system

From: Todd Towles (toddtowles_at_brookshires.com)
Date: 07/31/04

  • Next message: RandallM: "[Full-Disclosure] Cool Web Search Michael: take up the slack!" 
    To: "'Timo Sirainen'" <tss@iki.fi>, <full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 09:14:25 -0500

    Fedora Core 2 from Red Hat is free and includes SELinux. Anyone been using
    the test release of FC3?

    -----Original Message-----
    From: full-disclosure-admin@lists.netsys.com
    [mailto:full-disclosure-admin@lists.netsys.com] On Behalf Of Timo Sirainen
    Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 4:16 AM
    To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
    Cc: secureos@procontrol.fi
    Subject: [Full-Disclosure] [Paper] Designing secure desktop operating system

    [possibly somewhat off-topic here, secureos@procontrol.fi can be used
    for discussion about it]

    I've written down some ideas how I think it would be possible to
    implement easy to use and quite secure graphical user interface and
    operating system around it to make it possible. It's available at
    http://iki.fi/tss/security/os.html

    Currently I'd be very interested about hearing comments why my ideas
    simply wouldn't work with certain kind of software or would be just too
    much pain. Or some other fundemental technical problem why this could
    never work. Or more positively, people who would be willing to
    participate in more complete design or implementation.

    To avoid too many replies for issues that are either addressed there or
    aren't exactly relevant, please don't reply if you're only going to:

     - suggest using SELinux, Java sandboxes or similar (yes, maybe based on
    them, that's not the point)
     - say how sandboxing limits usability and it would never be user-
    friendly (it could)
     - say how user-friendliness and security are always mutually exclusive
    (they're not)
     - say how it's going to be too difficult to users to keep updating
    access control lists to run software they want (it's not needed)
     - confuse operating system with kernel (OS is more than just kernel)
     - say how no matter how "secure" you're trying to be, some people will
    always bypass it and hurt themselves/others (yes, it's true for home
    users)

    I've heard all of those too many times already and I think they're all
    answered well enough in the paper.

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

  • Next message: RandallM: "[Full-Disclosure] Cool Web Search Michael: take up the slack!"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: How best get rid of SELinux?
      ... From listening to what you have said on this topic on previous occasions, I have the impression that security is a serious concern of yours. ... than an "electronically secure" system is. ... If you do have remote access to your system, there is always the possibility that the program listening on that open port can be compromised using the same line of reasoning you employed to identify SELinux as being potentially vulnerable. ... compromised is at best negligent, ...
      (Fedora)
    • Re: How best get rid of SELinux?
      ... Anything else leaves the realm of security, ... than an "electronically secure" system is. ... your analogy points to the power consumption being the cause of the problems and that doesn't track with SELinux because it is what's working to prevent problems. ... One does not "blindly reload". ...
      (Fedora)
    • Re: Secure OS Thoughts
      ... > I have been reading a large amount about cryptography recently, ... > must be designed with security in mind from the outset. ... why has nobody created a secure operating system. ...
      (sci.crypt)
    • Re: I have 2 versions of .NET, which is being used
      ... 'secure' memory methods in the CRT in VS2005 will not prevent your own ... that will detect buffer overruns in code that you have not written and ... important part of an operating system, it mandates that .NET is used as ... However, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the security of a process is ...
      (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework)
    • Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel
      ... I have to agree that both AppArmor and Smack have at ... physical security, a security policy of "return;" for ... in this case the "box" I want to secure will eventually be ... SELinux with some X11 patches. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)