Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Xen-Based Secure OS Qubes Hits 1.0

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the subhurds-for-the-masses dept.

Virtualization 175

Orome1 writes "Joanna Rutkowska, CEO of Invisible Things Lab, today released version 1.0 of Qubes, a stable and reasonably secure desktop OS. It is the most secure option among the existing desktop operating systems — even more secure than Apple's iOS, which puts each application into its own sandbox and does not count on the user to make security decisions. Qubes will offer users the option of using disposable virtual machines for executing tasks they believe could harm their computer. These VMs will be lightweight, easily and extremely speedily created and booted, and would be just as easy to discard." First covered back in 2010. See some screenshots of the X11 part in action (and they say displaying clients from multiple "hosts" isn't useful...)

cancel ×

175 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yeah, VMs are the answer (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217183)

It's worked great for Java... they never have security vulnerabilities... oh wait.

I Use Words Good (5, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217961)

A JVM is called a virtual machine, but it isn't virtual machine in the same sense as the one provided by Xen. The JVM is a simple bytecode interpreter/compiler. It sort of emulates a machine, but not a complete machine. It runs in user space on top of the native OS and cannot run an OS of its own.

Xen is a hypervisor [wikipedia.org] whose virtual machines emulate a complete system. It doesn't just run the application program, it runs the whole bloody OS. The virtual machine has virtual disks, virtual memory, a virtual processor, even a virtual reset button, Support for this virtualization is built into modern processors, so it occurs at a very low level.

I imagine a sufficiently clever hacker could think of a way to bypass the guest OS and the hypervisor and do wacky things, But it's one hell of a lot harder than breaking out of a JVM sandbox.

Re:I Use Words Good (3, Interesting)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218279)

I imagine a sufficiently clever hacker could think of a way to bypass the guest OS and the hypervisor and do wacky things

Someone who could figure out how to do that would rent a private virtual server from Rackspace and go to town. I imagine there would be far more lucrative targets than a desktop.

Re:I Use Words Good (2)

fm6 (162816) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218351)

Not at all. You could put a Xen-breaking package in a trojan or virus and create virtual zombies for your botnet. But your malicious Rackspace VM would be limited to penetrating VMs that happened to live on the same physical server.

But.... I used to be the documentation lead for the Sun Fire X4600, a server that could have 8 quad-core processors and half a terabyte of RAM. You could run hundreds of VMs on the thing. Discontinued, alas.

Re:I Use Words Good (2, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41219329)

What im saying is that if youve cracked through to the hypervisor, they have some serious problems. If you manage to get root access to the box, all bets are off, especially if they have some kind of clustering-- you could potentially provision scads more VMs, and they would be loadbalanced.

Re:I Use Words Good (4, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 2 years ago | (#41219757)

I imagine a sufficiently clever hacker could think of a way to bypass the guest OS and the hypervisor and do wacky things,

Can and has. The sufficiently clever hacker that has been behind most incidences of piercing the guest-hypervisor veil is one Joanna Rutkowska, CEO of Invisible Things Lab.

Interesting how that works, don't you think?

Re:I Use Words Good (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 2 years ago | (#41219887)

Good thing she uses her powers for good!

Re:I Use Words Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41220091)

Blah blah blah. No, Joanna is not a sufficiently clever hacker. She is a sufficiently clever marketing person, and knows how to hire competent people with the desirable skillset.

Re:I Use Words Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41219869)

Yeah, its definitely a tough nut cracking into a guest OS especially if it is run as a read only mount and I guess that's probably the idea here so that any malware program cannot alter the so called security provisioning programs.

----------------------
http://dealcouponsusa.com
http://coolcoupons.in
http://topcoupons.in

Re:I Use Words Good (1)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 2 years ago | (#41220005)

I imagine a sufficiently clever hacker could think of a way to bypass the guest OS and the hypervisor and do wacky things, But it's one hell of a lot harder than breaking out of a JVM sandbox.

No, it's not:
Script Error Opens up Security Hole in Xen 3.0.3 [linux-magazine.com]

It's an easy trap to fall for, I grant you that. I was on the same line of thinking until my server got hacked with exactly the above mentioned bug.

Re:I Use Words Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41220089)

Breaking out of the hypervisor is definitely doable. It has been done before, even as recently as 2 months ago. See: http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2012/06/13/the-intel-sysret-privilege-escalation/ for a recent example, but dont fool yourself into thinking this is just a one time thing...

Re:Yeah, VMs are the answer (-1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218001)

Malware writers would just need to add a little more code:

If (insideVM()) {
          If(vmHost==exploitableVersion) {
                    infectHost = TRUE;
                    doBreakOutRoutine( infectHost );
          }
}

Re:Yeah, VMs are the answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41218405)

Why does it pass true to the break out routine?

Re:Yeah, VMs are the answer (2)

fm6 (162816) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218851)

Learn basic coding, dude:

If (insideVM()) {
            If(vmHost==exploitableVersion) {
                        doBreakOutRoutine( );
            }
}

Re:Yeah, VMs are the answer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41219901)

Follow your own advice, dude:

If ( insideVM() && vmHostIsExploitable() ) doBreakoutRoutine();

Re:Yeah, VMs are the answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41219217)

Don't you mean Jython? Or was it Scala... :)

And I feel so safe downloading it.. (2)

R_Growler (84235) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217265)

Because the first thing I see is:
Note: Be sure that you use a modern, non-handicapped browser to access the links below (e.g. disable the NoScript and the likes extensions that try to turn your Web Browser essentially into the 90's Mosaic).

Oh goodie...

Think I'll go with this one ;) : ... or you might try to download the ISO via bit torrent:

Re:And I feel so safe downloading it.. (5, Funny)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217443)

Because the first thing I see is:
Note: Be sure that you use a modern, non-handicapped browser to access the links below (e.g. disable the NoScript and the likes extensions that try to turn your Web Browser essentially into the 90's Mosaic).

Real men use wget. Or telnet.

Re:And I feel so safe downloading it.. (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#41219357)

Because the first thing I see is:
Note: Be sure that you use a modern, non-handicapped browser to access the links below (e.g. disable the NoScript and the likes extensions that try to turn your Web Browser essentially into the 90's Mosaic).

Real men use wget. Or telnet.

Definitely telnet. It's the most secure.

Re:And I feel so safe downloading it.. (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#41220043)

Real men use wget. Or telnet [google.com] .

TFTFY

Re:And I feel so safe downloading it.. (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217459)

You can be secure enough if you use a router, an updated operating system and separate profiles or different browsers when browsing all the stuff you shouldn't be browsing. Unless you're a politician, a drug lord, a terrorist cell leader, or somebody else with potentially powerful enemies.

That said, killing Javascript and disabling or better uninstalling all plug-ins for new sites or sites that you rarely visit should fix most Internet security issues.

Re:And I feel so safe downloading it.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41218317)

Neither the Invisible Things or Qubes web site works without Javascript. You know why? Because they both unnecessarily use Javascript for a static navigation menu.

That is absolutely pathetic.

Re:And I feel so safe downloading it.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217887)

At least for me, their wiki [qubes-os.com] is also serving up an expired (on 4/6/2011) SSL certificate.

To be fair, the java script requirement probably comes from Amazon, as the download link is https://s3.amazonaws.com/qubes-os/iso/Qubes-R1-x86_64-DVD.iso which gives me an error message encoded in XML. (with no script, no cookies, and the referrer spoofed to the root of the site (https://s3.amazonaws.com/))

Still, this is almost as bad as security tools with a browser interface that requires flash. (I'm looking at you, Nessus.) They could have used another distribution method that didn't require javascript; Coral Cache comes to mind.

Re:And I feel so safe downloading it.. (3, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218021)

I haven't visited the Qubes web site, But the fact that No'Script breaks it is not a big issue, NoScript breaks half the sites on the web. NoScript assumes that all scripting is evil and that you should never allow it unless you absolutely have to — after multiple warning from NoScript as to how dangerous it is.

If you think this is a sane approach to security, you should consider abandoning graphical browsers altogether. I think Lynx is still being maintained.

Re:And I feel so safe downloading it.. (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218093)

NoScript breaks half the sites on the web.

No, it doesn't. But thanks for playing.

Re:And I feel so safe downloading it.. (5, Insightful)

Black LED (1957016) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218199)

If your site breaks because the client doesn't have JavaScript enabled, then you are doing it wrong. The site should gracefully degrade so that anyone can use it.

Re:And I feel so safe downloading it.. (2, Interesting)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41219455)

should, yes. most of the web does not.

Re:And I feel so safe downloading it.. (1)

Black LED (1957016) | more than 2 years ago | (#41219973)

And I never claimed that it did. What's popular isn't always good.

Re:And I feel so safe downloading it.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41218163)

Note: Be sure that you use a modern, non-handicapped browser to access the links below (e.g. disable the NoScript and the likes extensions that try to turn your Web Browser essentially into the 90's Mosaic).

It's not just that, it's the condescension, the admission that they don't know how to create a file link without JavaScript (which may be indicative of the quality of their OS too) and the very poor grammar that it was written in. I was going to check this out, but now I'm going to give it a complete pass due solely to that idiotic statement.

Re:And I feel so safe downloading it.. (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218391)

I have no idea why it says that, the links appear to work fine with noscript in full force.

secure you say? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217305)

"It is the most secure option among the existing desktop operating systems"

what about OpenBSD?

Re:secure you say? (4, Funny)

R_Growler (84235) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217355)

"It is the most secure option among the existing desktop operating systems"

what about OpenBSD?

Yes? What about it?

You know, the headline for all the sec related news should read: "New Secure OS (Not being OpenBSD) Rleased!" or "The Sky is Falling, We'll all be cyber-robbed real soon now (unless you are using OpenBSD)" or "New virus, be very afraid! (OpenBSD users, well.. you're fine)"..
You know it just does not make good press ;)

HTH, HAND.

-RG.

Re:secure you say? (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217383)

what about OpenBSD?

Or Solaris?

Re:secure you say? (4, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217435)

Actually, it looks somewhat similar to the secure version of Solaris, running different processes in different VMs. I wonder if I have a crappy old machine lying around somewhere that I could test it on.

Re:secure you say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217591)

Just run it in a VM.

Re:secure you say? (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217683)

Just run it in a VM.

You seem to have missed the comments further down about it not running in a VM.

Re:secure you say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41219501)

Well, if you use KVM, you can pass your processor VMX/SVM flag and it would run another hypervisor on top on your KVM VM

Re:secure you say? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41219633)

"I wonder if I have a crappy old machine lying around somewhere that I could test it on."

No. You almost surely don't.

I've been fooling around with Qubes for six months now, looking for a good solution to the Bitcoin offline wallet issue. Qubes is perfect - you don't need to be offline, and yet you can manipulate your 'offline' wallet using Armory in a ("Black") Qubes VM with zero network contact; but you can use (secure copy/paste) file transfer to the online component of your wallet in a different VM with network access to send and receive bitcoins.

The thing is, you need some pretty specific hardware to enable all the security features of Qubes: either Intel VT-d, or IOMMU. Effective GPUs are limited as well. And chipsets, of course.

So unless your "crappy old machines" are a hell of a lot better than what's usually laying around, you're going to need to buy some hardware just like I did.

But it's worth it.

X11 protocol is not used for VM virtualization! (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217321)

Contrary to what the article above suggests, Qubes uses its own, custom and very slim GUI virtualization protocol, instead of the bloated and insecure X protocol!

X startup failed, aborting installation (2)

WD (96061) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217373)

Apparently Qubes can't be installed in VMware Fusion. This occurs with both the default boot mode and the "failsafe" VESA mode. I supposed that does indeed make it the most secure operating system possible.

I think they know. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217513)

Note: We don't recommend installing Qubes in a virtual machine! [qubes-os.org]

No, I'm not going to say something snarky like "you should have read the system requirements." or some demeaing bullshit that's all to common on Slashdot that also gets mod'ed up.

if I had a machine available I would have done the same thing - hey, that's what we do! jump in, try it out, and have fun

Re:I think they know. (1)

WD (96061) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217643)

Thanks. That's good to know. But it surely eliminates the majority of people who may wish to try it out.

Re:X startup failed, aborting installation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217753)

That's to prevent your system from being incepted.

Re:X startup failed, aborting installation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217969)

Imagine that, a virtualization technology that uses unused protection levels (rings) can't run a virtualization technology uses unused protection levels which are now in use!

I never would have guessed such a thing wouldn't work out of the box!

Re:X startup failed, aborting installation (2, Informative)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#41219301)

It is possible in some cases to run a VM in a VM [wordpress.com] . It's been done for decades on mainframes. It just happens that this particular VM won't run in a VM, but it's not an unreasonable thing to try.

Re:X startup failed, aborting installation (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41219517)

Workstation can also run ESXi, and HyperV - expecting this OS to work under a hypervisor isn't necessarily unreasonable. Sure, it doesn't work, but it's worth a shot these days - nested virtualization has been available on X64 for some time now.

Re:X startup failed, aborting installation (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218223)

Let me guess (correct me if I'm wrong: I didn't check out Qubes yet...): Qubes may be something like a Dom0 platform with its own hypervisor, and isn't supposed to run in DomU environments, i.e. in yet another virtual machine. Try it on the bare metal, and it may work. Joanna Rutkowska is a well-known master in Hypervisor-related "black magic." I wouldn't expect anything less than a hypervisor-based OS (or Meta-OS?) from her. And this means always that it MUST run on the bare metal.

Re:X startup failed, aborting installation (1)

WD (96061) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218733)

Possibly. In this case, however, it failed due to not having video drivers. It appears to require an Intel GPU. (or nVidia with some trickery)

Re:X startup failed, aborting installation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41219643)

True that.

I use an Intel DQ45EK motherboard - which is about the lowest end you can go and still have full functionality in Qubes.

It has an onboard Intel GPU, and it works great.

POSIX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217375)

Is this POSIX compliant? And does the command line support *NIX commands - if there is a command line?

Re:POSIX (2)

Tapewolf (1639955) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217475)

Actually, it seems to be something like a modified version of Fedora running inside their own hypervisor, with Fedora modified to run some processes inside sandboxes provided by the hypervisor. I think that's what it is, but I'm not completely sure.

Not quite true about iOS... (2)

EGSonikku (519478) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217407)

Would just like to point out iOS does in fact give user control over Privacy:

https://p.twimg.com/Avd_bj2CEAAokCD.jpg [twimg.com]

The same pop-up occurs when an application wants to access your photo's, location, etc.

And you can also set up Provacy controls for apps in Settings:

http://i.imgur.com/LvImi.jpg [imgur.com]

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217467)

Would just like to point out iOS does in fact give user control over Privacy:

Is there a way to use iOS without iTunes, because iTunes does, by default, require personal information. Is there a way to set up iTunes and purchase apps for iOS without giving up any personal information?

If not, then aren't those "privacy" setting in iOS a little like closing the barn door after your mule has been kidnapped and gang-raped by a biker gang and sold into white slavery?

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217493)

No. iOS devices are shipped in a locked state, and revert to locked when the erase feature is used. They can only be unlocked by connecting them to a computer running iTunes, and associating to it. I don't know if you need an iTunes account too, or just the software installed. The latter won't get you apps (Baring jailbreak) but you can at least put music and media on.

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (2)

EGSonikku (519478) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217575)

Older iOS devices. The iPhone 4S, and the new iPad don't require a connection to iTunes at all for activation. You can take it right out of the box and turn it on and be on your merry way.

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217983)

You can take it right out of the box and turn it on and be on your merry way.

Unless you want to run an app on it.

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (2)

EGSonikku (519478) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218827)

Then, as I said, you make an account as John Smith and make up an address and use gift cards or throw away credit cards. I mean, you can't blame Apple that purchasing things requires money. That's hardly an issue with iOS.

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (1)

EGSonikku (519478) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217509)

How do you intend to purchase apps without giving Apple your address and a method of payment? You could just use free apps, or use Apple gift cards for making purchases, and provide a fake name and address.

At least as of the iPhone 4S, and 3rd Gen iPad you aren't required to plug into a computer or use iTunes to activate. All setup is now done on device.

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (1)

Shadowmist (57488) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217531)

How do you intend to purchase apps without giving Apple your address and a method of payment? You could just use free apps, or use Apple gift cards for making purchases, and provide a fake name and address.

At least as of the iPhone 4S, and 3rd Gen iPad you aren't required to plug into a computer or use iTunes to activate. All setup is now done on device.

That's true of any device running iOS 5 or later.

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217995)

That's true of any device running iOS 5 or later.

It's also true that if you happen to want to actually use your iOS device by running an app on it, you've got to give up that personal information.

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (1)

Mista2 (1093071) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218371)

Or you can lie.
Just like the personal security questions, I lie to them too.
Many services i use think I live at 1 Infinite Loop, including Apple 8)

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217963)

How do you intend to purchase apps without giving Apple your address and a method of payment?

That's my point. There are methods of paying without giving personal information. Paypal comes to mind. Apple won't allow those.

That's why any "privacy" setting in iOS is just marketing BS.

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217979)

Buy a gift card with cash. Lie about your personal information. Problem solved.

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (2, Interesting)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218033)

Is there a way to use iOS without iTunes, because iTunes does, by default, require personal information. Is there a way to set up iTunes and purchase apps for iOS without giving up any personal information?

Unless you are on an enterprise account there is no tracking between accounts and what you buy. The only company with that information is Apple and Apple doesn't sell data. Its sort of like worrying about privacy from the bank that's running your credit cards.

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41218541)

The only company with that information is Apple and Apple doesn't sell data.

This is so misguided it needs to be shouted at everyone. Are you insane?

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41220065)

Mod UP

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217499)

Would just like to point out iOS does in fact give user control over Privacy

Apple uses a different definition of privacy than other people do; they define it as "giving information to anyone other than us." So your data is private, as long as you don't mind Apple having all of it.

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (1)

EGSonikku (519478) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217545)

Apple's own apps have the same pop ups, and though you are asked for your name and address to create an AppStore account, nothing stops you from providing a fake name and address, or using Apple Gift Cards or throw away credit cards for purchases.

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217805)

nothing stops you from providing a fake name and address

No. You have to enter a valid credit card to create an account, including card number, and billing name/address.

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218647)

Funny, I have an Apple ID without a credit card attached.

Re:Not quite true about iOS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217657)

Would just like to point out that iOS is not the benchmark for security either.

What a specimen (4, Funny)

TummyBanana (2721845) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217487)

Blimey, have you checked her out? She has is now my third favourite woman (after my mother and the Queen).

Re:What a specimen (1)

blade8086 (183911) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217559)

Yes, but she speaks polish. have you ever heard polish?

Re:What a specimen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217587)

I'm sure we could think of things to do to keep her from speaking.

But, looking at photos, I'm not convinced she's not a fembot of some type. Definitely some robot in there somewhere.

Re:What a specimen (1)

TummyBanana (2721845) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217619)

Yeah, but I bet she speaks better English than most English people, too.

Re:What a specimen (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41218253)

Not passing judgment in any way, but you do know that this specimen is of questionable gender?
http://www.rutkowska.yoyo.pl/ [rutkowska.yoyo.pl]

Re:What a specimen (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218665)

Why do you care?

Re:What a specimen (3, Insightful)

spasm (79260) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218261)

And people wonder why women avoid IT..

Re:What a specimen (2, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218589)

Yes. It is a well known fact that women hate it when guys think they are hot.

Re:What a specimen (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218761)

Don't feed the butthurt feminist trolls...

Re:What a specimen (2, Insightful)

capedgirardeau (531367) | more than 2 years ago | (#41219145)

I don't see anything in the comment you replied to that indicates poster meant she was attractive or was in any way objectifying or sexist.

In fact quite the opposite when you read who is other two top females are, his mom and the Queen, women he presumably respects for reasons other than sexist reasons.

It read to me like he checked out her significant credentials in her chosen field and was very appropriately impressed.

Re:What a specimen (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218771)

I don't share your particular preferences for (pheno-|geno-|whatever-) type. Competitors - 1. Lucky you!

Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217523)

I have a computer that's even more secure.

It has no plugs at all. If you can't power it on. It's forever secure!

Not very useful tho.

Alot like tfa one it sounds like.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41219013)

The Iranians thought that being offline would protect them too.

Missing projects & documents on her site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217685)

what happened to some of the projects on her site? "Red Pill" and others are nothing but broken links. What a shame, some useful tools and documents.

But.. consider... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217787)

what if she's a spy?

Disposable VM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41217813)

(2010) "Disposable VMs will be very lightweight VMs that can be created and booted in a very short time, say 1s, with a sole purpose of hosting only one application, e.g. a PDF viewer, or a Media Player."

so what exactly is this disposable vm? is it self-contained? can it run non-virtualized? what applications can it run? what application can it not run?

TIA

lacking documentation or lack of focus (0)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 2 years ago | (#41217925)

I've looked through the docs, and can't tell what distro this is based upon.

It's a cool thought, but it feels a little too 'new' and lacking in robustness.

Re:lacking documentation or lack of focus (2)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 2 years ago | (#41218651)

"I've looked through the docs, and can't tell what distro this is based upon."

You should have stuck with the main page. From the linked page: "And what good is saying that our microkernel is formally verified, if we continue to use a bloated and buggy X server as our GUI subsystem?" It is an OS with its own microkernel. So you can reasonably expect to have difficulty determining which distribution it is based on, since it is not based on a distribution.

Re:lacking documentation or lack of focus (1)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 2 years ago | (#41220109)

I'm not sure you're correct on that. I've read comments elsewhere suggesting it's a modified Fedora. Further, the statement you listed does not say anything about Qubes itself. It says there are microkernels that are verified as "secure", but that X itself is not.

Funny that my honest question gets modded down. This is not an obvious question that's readily apparent from the blog post nor project website.

Debian GNU/Hurd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41218483)

Does this visualization better by leaps and bounds. Just need some more polish.

YOU FAIL IT... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41218543)

User. 'Now that It just 0wnz.', it has to be fun moans a8d groans lube. This can lead area. It is the WAS WHAT GOT ME Save Linux from a DDeper into the

A new OS? Really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41218737)

Joanna Rutkowska, CEO of Invisible Things Lab, today released version 1.0 of Qubes, a stable and reasonably secure desktop OS. It is the most secure option among the existing desktop operating systems — even more secure than Apple's iOS, which puts each application into its own sandbox and does not count on the user to make security decisions.

What the fuck are you smoking? Did you even read the blog post? As they say on Wikipedia, "[citation needed]" You can't call something it's own proponent admits isn't ready for prime time, "the most secure option among existing desktop operating systems," because in a sense, it's NOT itself an existing desktop operating system, and the blog post even admits they've had security bugs in their own code, so the notion their new OS is more secure begs the question, how can you know if something is more secure, when it's not even fully finished or fleshed out yet? That would be like saying a new aircraft design IS the fastest aircraft in the world, while it's still being fucking built!

Anyway, this is nothing to be excited about or worked up over. From their website, it looks like this is more than anything else just another Linux-based OS, which means it's probably not especially more secure than Linux itself. Even if they layer security on top, it's still vulnerable to whatever the kernel beneath is, isn't it? Plus it's using X... so it's got Linux on the bottom, X in the middle, and from the screenshots, KDE on top, so how is this not really anything more than Just Another Fscking Distro? Hmm???

Re:A new OS? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41219779)

I thought it used a different kernel. Where are you seeing that it's a Linux distro?

New OS or glorified shell script ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41219039)

It seems to me that QubeOS is little more than a wrapper for your usual kvm machines.

How comes this makes the news on /. ?
Is QubeOS any more interesting than Joanna Rutkowska's previous discoveries like the 100% undetectable rootkit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Pill_%28software%29
Which was actually not even stealth if the rules had allowed to tamper with the machine or saturate the CPU like any serious forensic people would do.

Is that just another hoax to draw attention and ask for a huge sum of money this time again ?
I have lurked Rutkowska's blog and website, i'm pretty sure the "CEO" doesn't actually have any technical skills nor a big team of specialized engineers.

Presenting other people's work at DefCon as your own this year again ? Sure, no shame whatsoever.

Re:New OS or glorified shell script ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41219123)

I can plug VNC clients to my FreeBSD jails too for sure and didn't rebrand the concept as a whole new OS.

A secure approach to insecure software (0)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41219375)

The whole idea seems quite ridiculous.
The OS's focus is isolating applications because they may have security issues. That's just a nasty workaround, applications with issues need to be fixed, and that's the end of it. You can try a millon different thing, but coding secure applications will always work.
It will always have less overhead as well, since it's not an aditional VM (how much memory does this use up in order to run, say, leafpad [freeshell.org] ?
Have we really reached a point were bad software is so commonly accepted that we tailor OSs so it's no longer a problem?

Re:A secure approach to insecure software (1)

myxiplx (906307) | more than 2 years ago | (#41220019)

Riiiight. Because requiring every single programmer in the world to design perfect software with no errors is sooooo much easier than adding extra security to the OS.

People make mistakes, it's why the term human error exists. In the real world people accept this and work with it. It isn't something you can eliminate.

Com or Corba? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41219843)

I can help but feel that something like this would need some form of (D)COM or CORBA for interVM communication. The problem is that AFAIK all such technologies are gead expect for those specific to a particular language.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?