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

211–220 of 290 posts

Re: Kaspersky OS

#211

Post by Aldo_MX »

Vendan wrote: post #161
Aldo_MX wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prev…

Well, there's also how serious the vulnerabilities are. Linux kernel had 4 code execution vulns, Windows 10 had 44. Linux had 44 gain privilege vulns, Windows 10 had 79. Linux seemed to have mostly DoS vulns, which is admittedly not great, but I'd rather a server go down then get compromised and used to take over the rest of the network. Then there's the fun stuff, like mimikatz, that's been around since windows XP a…

It is expected that the smallest attack surface will have less critical vulnerabilities, comparing an entire distro gives you a different picture, since categories like code execution get similar results.

The stark contrast is in the privilege escalation vulnerabilities from the Windows side vs the other categories on the Linux side.

I would assume that many persons prefer a server to go down, corrupt its data and leak it, rather than get compromised. The fine print is that the leaked data may contain information to compromise the server[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbleed

Re: Kaspersky OS

#212

Post by distances »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #177
nine_k wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's why China built their own OS on top of an open-source BSD. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kylin_(operating_system)

Nowadays it's Linux though, according to the article.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#213

Post by grzm »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #206
grzm wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. Granted, the BSD base is arguably one step removed from Apple (as that was NeXTSTEP, which Apple acquired), and both Darwin and OpenStep are open source. Apple continues to release the source of some of their software.[0] According to the "Myths" page at FreeBSD, "FreeBSD 9.1 and later include a C++ stack and compiler that were originally developed for OS X, with major parts of the work done by Apple employees",[1] so it hasn't completely been freeloading.

I don't know enough about the levels of contribution to either to make a strong comparison, and I'm more than willing to grant IBM and Red Hat make much larger contributions to Linux than Apple does to FreeBSD. And I sympathize with the desire to have more contributions. The "how Apple treated BSD" phrasing sounds like there is more active bad treatment rather than not contributing enough. Maybe the hiring of Jordan Hubbard is considered active bad treatment? (Honest question)

[0]: https://opensource.apple.com

[1]: https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths#FreeBSD_is_Just_OS_X_Without_...

Re: Kaspersky OS

#214

Post by this-dang-guy »

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.

I don't believe they have in any way violated the letter or even spirit of the BSD license. It's extremely liberal, and should be.

However, they used to really flaunt their BSD roots on OSX, but seem to do very little to give back in the form of code, money, or even PR for that matter.

Here's an example of that: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Da...

But now they've even removed any mention of this, and allowed projects like OpenDarwin and such to just plain die. I think it's pretty poor behavior from a company that's SO involved in intellectual property rights to just take something as valuable as a complete kernel and userland (not GUI) and then just sweep it under the carpet because no laws require them to do otherwise.

Puts a really bad taste in my mouth to see such important work treated like that. I'd have expected it from IBM, but not from Apple.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#215

Post by this-dang-guy »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #206
grzm wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Exactly - sorry, was busy :)

Re: Kaspersky OS

#216

Post by gspetr »

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…

This is proprietary.

Source: ex-employee.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#217

Post by grzm »

this-dang-guy wrote: post #214
grzm wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I don't believe they have in any way violated the letter or even spirit of the BSD license. It's extremely liberal, and should be. However, they used to really flaunt their BSD roots on OSX, but seem to do very little to give back in the form of code, money, or even PR for that matter. Here's an example of that: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Da... But now they've even removed any mention o…

Gotcha. Thanks for taking the time to respond and fill in more of the blanks. I appreciate it.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#218

Post by 77pt77 »

nine_k wrote: post #151
CaptSpify wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Open-source hardware would be great at counteracting this (and for other reasons)

This is actually the crux and to my knowledge is non-existent.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#219

Post by frandroid »

I want to highlight how their "sign up to our newsletter" pop-up only popped up when I scrolled to the bottom of the article, and how it had a prominent "No thanks" button. So much better UI than all those pop-on-load-before-I've-read-anything ones out there.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#220

Post by kbenson »

seanhunter wrote: post #105
tomp wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What choice do we have? All other operating systems send your information either to NSA or China. State surveillance reigns supreme.

That's a bizarre accusation and very easy to fact-check for yourself. It's trivial to run a packet sniffer and see all the information being sent out of your network. I know for sure that my apple and my linux boxes aren't making any network connections that I don't understand.

Unless you are running a sniffer on a separate device, you're likely far less sure of that than you think you are. There are multiple components in modern computers that have some level of system access and aren't terribly constrained by the kernel (possibly including the processor on your network card itself), and that's before you get into the kernel itself lying to you (either by design or through a module).
Post reply on HN