|
|||||||||||
|
Re: OpenBSD business model
From: Mike Shaw <mike(at)shawnuff.net>
Date: Fri Feb 28 2003 - 18:54:43 EST So if !Orange_Book(A1) then $Security_Model = shite? Following your line of thinking, I could argue that any OS using commercial hardware has a crap security model. I could still grab keystrokes with a passive dongle device or sniff the monitor signals from my secret moon base. I probably wouldn't make that argument on a list dedicated to an OS that runs on commercial hardware though. I would think that an opinion based so heavily on an academic view of security models would understand risk concepts as well. I don't have shielding around my living room because my daughter's disney games are probably not the most critical thing in an EMP event. Further, building a living room under a mountain is a bit silly. If I was controlling trillions of dollars, then shielding and mountain digging might make sense. If I was controlling items that create their own EMP events in response to other items that create EMP, then taking all available steps would be a no brainer. Nearly all the things you speak of could be worked into a *nix operating system at an adequate level (encrypted filesystems, etc). The ones that couldn't are of little value to anyone except bunker dwellers. *nix's can be made more than suitable for 99.999% of commercial and domestic applications. It's just that very few are working on it in lieu of features or beating microsoft. In my opinion, OpenBSD is the best project around making OS security possible to the common user, academic criticism of everything in the whole wide world notwithstanding. -Mike Received on Fri Feb 28 18:56:33 2003 This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 23 2006 - 13:33:19 EDT |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||