Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kaspersky OS

eugene.kaspersky.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 290 posts

Re: Kaspersky OS

#21

Post by sjellis »

My suspicion is that most attempts to create a better OS for IoT will fail for political reasons. AFIAKT, one really important characteristic of Linux (and JavaScript also) for large tech companies is that they can control their own stacks, without having to license tech from another corporation, but still have the benefit of network effects. Samsung have Tizen, Google have ChromeOS etc. etc.

At the component level, Linux also empowers the chip vendors to build what they want on their own timescales and then address a large market. Even open Linux drivers are sometimes loaders for proprietary firmware, so they aren't really giving up the ability to ship code in a black box.

I don't see any of them willingly cooperating with a company that wants to manage and deliver the whole OS from the the kernel up. TLDR: The industry probably does not want a Microsoft for IoT.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#22

Post by pawadu »

krylon wrote: post #13

It sounds very interesting, for sure, but the announcement is a little thin on details. The OS is apparently based around a microkernel. Which sounds good, but AFAIK, microkernels are comparatively popular in the embedded space (think QNX, L4) - so that choice is not in itself revolutionary. They mention signatures, and it kind of sounds as if the OS will refuse to execute any non-signed code. Again, sounds like a go…

L4 is popular in embedded space? Can you provide some examples?

Re: Kaspersky OS

#23

Post by rincebrain »

krylon wrote: post #13

It sounds very interesting, for sure, but the announcement is a little thin on details. The OS is apparently based around a microkernel. Which sounds good, but AFAIK, microkernels are comparatively popular in the embedded space (think QNX, L4) - so that choice is not in itself revolutionary. They mention signatures, and it kind of sounds as if the OS will refuse to execute any non-signed code. Again, sounds like a go…

Yes, it was two valid signatures from two different stolen certs.

The more terrifying crypto demo, IMO, was the Flame rootkit, which used a new MD5 collision to forge its signature bona fides.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#24

Post by kriro »

No word on if this is FLOSS or not in the article so I'm assuming it'll be something closed. Which essentially renders the entire exercise moot form my POV. I also don't like how they mentioned Linux. They make it sound as if

(a) Linux is very insecure...I'm no expert but I'd like to see them prove their system is more secure than a Linux distro dedicated to security.

(b) Linux is the only viable option. There's plenty of other operating systems, some even focus on security (starting with the list of existing microkernels).

Re: Kaspersky OS

#25

Post by woof »

Animats wrote: post #10

Somebody finally did this. Good for them. Unbreakable boxes for DNS, BGP, and routers will be a good start. Those boxes don't need to do anything else, and contain no user data. Looking forward to hearing more about their OS.

Unbreakable?

From a company based in Russia?

Really?

Re: Kaspersky OS

#26

Post by antocv »

yug wrote: post #16
f_allwein wrote: post #7

Will this be open source, or will we have to trust Kapersky that it is secure?

I guess you'll have to trust him and his friends from the FSB (former KGB) :)

Do you make the same remarks when Google, Microsoft, Apple or Palantir releases software?

Re: Kaspersky OS

#28

Post by madshiva »

"In order to hack this platform a cyber-baddie would need to break the digital signature, which – any time before the introduction of quantum computers – would be exorbitantly expensive." I loled

Re: Kaspersky OS

#29

Post by antocv »

woof wrote: post #25
Animats wrote: post #10

Somebody finally did this. Good for them. Unbreakable boxes for DNS, BGP, and routers will be a good start. Those boxes don't need to do anything else, and contain no user data. Looking forward to hearing more about their OS.

Unbreakable? From a company based in Russia? Really?

Does Russia make backdoored hardware and software? Do you have proof of that?

But we do have proof USA does that. See Snowden leaks.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#30

Post by akourman »

I think after Microsoft is part of Linux foundation now, and now your telling us that you have a powerful and secure CLOSE source OS !!! .. I think Open Source already won the war!! and your somewhat 14 years late...
Post reply on HN