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

151–160 of 290 posts

Re: Kaspersky OS

#151

Post by nine_k »

CaptSpify wrote: post #135
illumin8 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should look at this as it really is: Russia is super paranoid, and increasingly isolationist. Putin is also realizing that all of his technology comes from western companies, and they are trying to build their own, so that they aren't so reliant on Cisco routers, Intel CPUs, and Apple smartphones. This will be a russian OS, designed to allow russian companies to buy routers, switches, and firewalls that are not ma…

> Russia is super paranoid, and increasingly isolationist And they have good reason to be. The US has really shot itself in the foot by intentionally compromising the systems we create. Hopefully we can use this (and similar actions by other countries) to turn that around.

Let's cautiously assume that China also does this.

Open-source hardware would be great at counteracting this (and for other reasons), but it's harder than open-source software.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#152

Post by dang »

deavmi wrote: post #91

Russia. Ha. No my friend. Kaspersky. Ha. No my friend. Closed source. Ha no, and you ain't ma friend.

Please stop posting unsubstantive comments.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#153

Post by Aldo_MX »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #118
IshKebab wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux is very insecure. Maybe you have not been following the news lately.

But comparatively speaking is still more secure than Windows or OS X?

Depends on who you ask, for example, taking the top 50 products with new vulnerabilities discovered in 2016[1], Windows 10 got less vulnerabilities than the Linux Kernel and OS X.

This could either mean that Windows 10 has become more secure than its most popular competitors, or that researchers hadn't invested enough resources to audit Windows 10 properly.

Taking into account the results from previous years and previous versions (like 8.1), my personal conclusion is that Windows has actually become more secure.

[1] https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php?year=2016

Re: Kaspersky OS

#154

Post by valarauca1 »

this-dang-guy wrote: post #144
adrianN wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't trust your processor you can't trust any of your verification chain that runs on said processor.

Ahem http://rationalviews.com/t/presentation-on-fully-open-source... You could go into that rabbit hole. I'd recommend against it... I lost days reading all the docs and playing with this

POWER8/9 isn't fully open. Read the license agreements. While you get access to a lot of stuff, there is a lot of fine print you are ignoring. A lot of the deep docs are behind paywalls.

To get access to POWER8/9 literature you sign away your rights to OPEN-POWER. Also if you make anything for POWER8/9, under a public license (what license you can/can't use are dictated by the license agreement), using docs obtained from an OPEN-POWER member company if that member company upon leaving the OPEN-POWER may claim ownership of your code.

They'll really only let you use 3 Clause BSD or Apache2. Linux has the only exception for GPLv2, and GPLv3 is banned, using it on a project can have your membership to OPEN-POWER revoked, and your code ownership transferred to IBM. If they decide to purpose it.

OPEN-POWER isn't open. The docs are free and if you write anything too useful a high paying member can seize your software. The only protection from this, is to buy in as a high level enterprise member. OPEN-POWER is down right predatory for research free-tier membership.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#155

Post by linkregister »

rthomas6 wrote: post #134
vbezhenar wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet it's not widely used as embedded OS. I never saw any router with OpenBSD or web camera. The underlying problem, IMO, is people. They just don't care about security, they want to deliver working device. Also it's not clear how many vulnerabilities, used in real life attacks (like DDOS from IoT devices) are in latest Linux kernel? May be problem not with Linux, but with custom software or lack of updates.

But OSX, Windows, and full-blown Linux aren't used as embedded OSes either. Linux is a bit, but there are a lot of other choices.

I'm not sure if it shares APIs with Win32, but Windows CE runs almost half of every ATM I've ever used.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#156

Post by ksk »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #118
IshKebab wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux is very insecure. Maybe you have not been following the news lately.

But comparatively speaking is still more secure than Windows or OS X?

What do you mean by secure? What kinds of OS functions and capabilities do you consider the purview of an OS from a security standpoint?

Re: Kaspersky OS

#157

Post by linkregister »

golergka wrote: post #65
agopaul wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you expand on the "dodgy history"? I always thought that Kaspersky was one of the "good guys"

Kaspersky had a history of working with Russian security agencies, has a lot of buddies there and a lot of people have throughout their careers moved from Kaspersky to these agencies and vice versa. If Russia will need somerhing from Kaspersky, government won't even need a warrant - he'll be happy to help.

Are there any news articles to substantiate the claim that Kaspersky readily gives information to the Russian government?

Re: Kaspersky OS

#158

Post by Dolores12 »

SEJeff wrote: post #132
Dolores12 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer the FSB to have access to my files than NSA. What FSB can do to me? Send to Guantanamo?

May I present you with exhibit a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvine...

How does it relate to my porn collection?

Re: Kaspersky OS

#159

Post by Dolores12 »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #129
Dolores12 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's another FUD. Keep in mind that Kaspersky lab have found EQUATION Group, no one else could.

How many Russian state sponsored hacking teams have they uncovered?

I see 2 options:

1) there is none 2) they are too good at hiding

Re: Kaspersky OS

#160

Post by mmalone »

kriro wrote: post #24

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 plen…

The article is light on details, but based on the way they talked about it ("impossible to hack in principle") it's likely that they actually can _prove_ that it's more secure than a Linux distro dedicated to security insofar as they're able to prove anything at all. Since the Linux APIs are not formally specified, or verified, it's essentially impossible to _prove_ anything at all (again, in a formal sense). Formal verification can get esoteric quickly, but the state of the art is very impressive (see CompCert, seL4, Agda, Idris).

As someone who has been paying attention to this space for some time I welcome anything new that increases exposure. It's cool stuff, and it's probably the future. However, there's a long way to go. Security doesn't stop at the operating system. In fact, the vast majority of security breaches occur due to misconfiguration, bugs, or good old fashioned social engineering. To really build a system that's "secure in principle" you can't stop at the operating system: you need to build a toolchain that makes it easy to build user space applications that are also "secure in principal" and you need to work on the HCI so the security model makes sense / isn't defeated by users. That's going to be a lot of work!

Post reply on HN