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

201–210 of 290 posts

Re: Kaspersky OS

#201

Post by nickpsecurity »

Dolores12 wrote: post #159
at-fates-hands wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Or option 3 they covered it up for their Russian buddies like the U.S. firms probably covered up Equation Group. This should be the default assumptions in what are essentially police states with surveillance and hacking prone intelligence services + ability to gag, bribe, or destroy commercial vendors. Best not to trust any of them in general and especially not trust them to turn on their domestic, intelligence services.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#202

Post by floatboth »

A lot of OpenBSD mentions here, but what about MINIX 3? It's so underrated and ignored :( They made a nice microkernel-based UNIX-like system with a NetBSD userspace.

Also, Redox is switching to a microkernel architecture...

Re: Kaspersky OS

#203

Post by thiagowfx »

Since this is an OS designed with security in mind, and since they even mentioned Linux (albeit not too nicely), I missed a comparison with or mention of OpenBSD.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#204

Post by grzm »

this-dang-guy wrote: post #198
nickpsecurity wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was actually shocked they didn't contribute to FreeBSD instead then rebrand their management or security customizations as their own enterprise OS. The Chinese ended up doing that with Kylan. Cambridge's CHERI team made it capability-secure with minimal modifications. IBM was in ideal position to do that, too, given they had legendary Paul Karger who already built high-assurance OS's and CPU's for them. Let's just…

That's a big book right there! I was really disappointed in how Apple treated BSD, but I am stupid and naive. I would have expected that from IBM though.

"I was really disappointed in how Apple treated BSD"

Would you go into more detail here? The BSD license is very liberal. That's no excuse for bad behavior, but I'm unfamiliar with bad actions on Apple's part wrt BSD, which I gather there were given your phrasing.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#205

Post by Dolores12 »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #201
Dolores12 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see 2 options: 1) there is none 2) they are too good at hiding

Or option 3 they covered it up for their Russian buddies like the U.S. firms probably covered up Equation Group. This should be the default assumptions in what are essentially police states with surveillance and hacking prone intelligence services + ability to gag, bribe, or destroy commercial vendors. Best not to trust any of them in general and especially not trust them to turn on their domestic, intelligence servi…

Whats the problem for Norton, Symantec, Mcafee to find them and do nice research paper for everyone to read?

Re: Kaspersky OS

#206

Post by nickpsecurity »

grzm wrote: post #204
this-dang-guy wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a big book right there! I was really disappointed in how Apple treated BSD, but I am stupid and naive. I would have expected that from IBM though.

"I was really disappointed in how Apple treated BSD" Would you go into more detail here? The BSD license is very liberal. That's no excuse for bad behavior, but I'm unfamiliar with bad actions on Apple's part wrt BSD, which I gather there were given your phrasing.

Parent might be referring to how they just gobbled it up into Darwin and Mac OS X while contributing about nothing back. At least, I'm aware of them making a bunch of money off Mac OS X and iPhones but not hearing about contributions to FreeBSD at level IBM or Red Hat do to Linux.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#207

Post by nickpsecurity »

Dolores12 wrote: post #205
nickpsecurity wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or option 3 they covered it up for their Russian buddies like the U.S. firms probably covered up Equation Group. This should be the default assumptions in what are essentially police states with surveillance and hacking prone intelligence services + ability to gag, bribe, or destroy commercial vendors. Best not to trust any of them in general and especially not trust them to turn on their domestic, intelligence servi…

Whats the problem for Norton, Symantec, Mcafee to find them and do nice research paper for everyone to read?

I just said the problem.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#208

Post by PerfectDlite »

illumin8 wrote: post #101
EugeneOZ wrote: post #88

Only use it if you want to send all of your information to FSB (modern KGB). Evgeniy Kasperskiy has friends in government, police and FSB. He also is apologet of state surveillance.

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…

> This is a first step towards trying to build some type of technological independence from the west.

And this is not step forward, but to the side, since they're becoming technically dependent on Chinese now.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#209

Post by kbenson »

mmalone wrote: post #160
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…

> Since the Linux APIs are not formally specified, or verified

That said, they are apparently stable enough to emulate enough of Linux that from another OS that you can simulate a Linux OS as a container and run software as if it's on Linux.[1] So, to my mind that implies that while they may not be formally specified, it's not too hard to look at what's actually implemented and treat that as a sort of loose spec.

1: http://www.slideshare.net/bcantrill/illumos-lx

Re: Kaspersky OS

#210

Post by PerfectDlite »

narrator wrote: post #89
EugeneOZ wrote: post #88

Only use it if you want to send all of your information to FSB (modern KGB). Evgeniy Kasperskiy has friends in government, police and FSB. He also is apologet of state surveillance.

Iran and other SCO countries will be customers since they are friendly with Russia. I wonder if they are running it on Elbrus chips. That would make it extra super secure and Russian.

> That would make it extra super secure and Russian.

And extra slow, considering Elbrus performance.

Post reply on HN