[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Linus replies
From: |
Tom Bachmann |
Subject: |
Re: Linus replies |
Date: |
Thu, 11 May 2006 21:07:32 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060403) |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Jones wrote:
> Maybe I am not understanding the definition of "highly secure" systems,
> but OpenBSD comes to mind for an exmaple of a highly secure, monolithic
> system.
well... openbsd is probably more secure than e.g. linux, but I wouldn't
call it highly secure. For me highly secure means that you can run
potentially malicious code without harm. I do not know exactly about the
openbsd security architecture, but it is very coarse grained compared to
object capability systems (iirc). Also, it relies on acls (for what I
know), a security model *known not to work*.
- --
- -ness-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEY4t0vD/ijq9JWhsRAkYqAJ4sRX9YwtGE+Zd4fhEdXW+dteEFagCfdgXd
3nTsWpT1VP7cGZnOpWVss1U=
=G94E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Re: Linus replies, (continued)
- Re: Linus replies, MT Rezaie, 2006/05/11
- Re: Linus replies, Marco Gerards, 2006/05/11
- Re: Linus replies, Richard Braun, 2006/05/11
- Re: Linus replies, Martin Schoenbeck, 2006/05/11
- Re: Linus replies, Richard Braun, 2006/05/12
- Re: Linus replies, Michal Suchanek, 2006/05/13
- Re: Linus replies, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/13
- Re: Linus replies, Martin Schoenbeck, 2006/05/11
- Re: Linus replies, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/05/11
- Re: Linus replies, Donnie Jones, 2006/05/11
- Re: Linus replies,
Tom Bachmann <=
- Re: Linus replies, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/05/11
- Re: Linus replies, Espen Skoglund, 2006/05/11
- Re: Linus replies, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/05/11
- Re: Linus replies, William Grim, 2006/05/12
- Re: Linus replies, Marco Gerards, 2006/05/11
Re: Linus replies. Re: Computer: Can We Make Operating Systems Reliable and Secure?, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2006/05/11