Posted By: Sabot | Jul 18th @ 1:02 PM
page 1 of 1
Comments: 15 | Views: 682
Linus Torvald has passed a few comments about security which are upsetting the security crowd, hmmm I think the line when he compares the OpenBSD crowd to a bunch of "masto*(tugging)*ing monkey" got them all in a tizz.

Read the full extract here.

I've always thought that a balance needs to be struck between security and functionality.  The Linux crowd are all abit sensitive about ... well everything ... no wonder it's toys out of pram time. I wish the Linux crowd was abit more mature then prehaps they would get a few more listeners to what is a top-flight OS and the message about Open Source that is cool.

There is after no such thing as 100% secure and that after all is the secure game in a nuttshell, it's a percentage game. If you are asking for money and/or pesonal details on a website you tighten it up so much that it past squeeking. If it's a intranet site about your bosses favourite tree your aren't going to bother locking it down further than the hardening wizard.
Sabot said:

There is after no such thing as 100% secure

Yeah. "100% secure" has no meaning. I sometimes dream about a "A User's Manifesto" where I can enumerate my rights over my computer. I'll start.

I) The OS shall inform me when an app tries to do squirrely stuff like install keyboard capture, network proxy, and other driver-level stuff.

II) Regarding I), UAC doesn't count. LOL!

III) The OS shall provide to me a way to remove an app completely easily and without uncertainty.

IV) The Browser should follow I) but ask me twice, just to be safe.

V) This is 2008, there shouldn't be buffer overflows anymore!

VI) The OS SHOULD protect me (somehow) from the dancing bunnies.

anymore?
That thread is a good read so far. That pageexec guy is just pwning Linus.

Edit:
Geesh, they're going on about how "Microsoft hides" security problems...and at the same time they're going on about not disclosing them themselves. Am I missing something?
Why doesn't UAC count? It prevents you from doing anything that affects the system state. You can destory your user-profile as much as you want, but you are warned if an operation is about to happen that can damage the system. Sure, the UI could be tidied up and a be ALOT more descriptive, but the principle is there.

Kevin
KevinB said:

Why doesn't UAC count?

It's too broad, and becomes meaning less. I rather see:

-----
DancingBunnies.exe is about to start monitoring your keyboard. Do you want to allow?

[Allow keyboard monitoring]     [Don't Allow]
-----

than

-----
DancingBunnies.exe needs your permission to continue.

[Continue]   [Cancel]
-----
I'd rather see dancingbunnies.exe get built in a manor that means it doesn't rely on administration scope to function.. but windows doesn't have granular access breakdown, uac just elevates the app to admin - who has admin rights over whatever.. its somewhat of an ideal to ask for that, making that happen in windows would take a lot of transition time.. and you have to think - theres probably something a lot better that could be done, and still complete in a similar transition time... (10 years?)
I'm not sure if it's impossible. To hook into the keyboard chain, you have to call an API, right? Just do something...
DancingBunnies would not need admin rights if it was a "normal" app.

the problem is too many apps want admin rights, most of the time they should not need them.
Imagine the sheer number of UAC prompts if that were the case, people complain as it is. Of course, you could have a 'Do this for all remaining admin required actions' which would be equivalent to today's UAC, but if this was checked by default, where is the security gain for the probably pretty substantial amount of work that this would involve.

I understand what you mean, I just don't think it would be a quick solution to develop for pretty minimal payoff.

Kevin
I once read an interview where Linus said "Windows is a great OS that Linux still has to catch up to"
People have weird ideas of Linux developers. If they read LKML more they would see that there's plenty of developers with different opinions and thoughts about how things should be done. That's the salt of the open discussion.
page 1 of 1
Comments: 15 | Views: 682