digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

How the NSA took Linux to the next level

ibm.com — You know SELinux is built to be virtually attack-proof, but do you know how the National Security Agency (NSA) accomplish it? Take a closer look at the SELinux kernel architecture, why this is important, and what makes SELinux one of the most secure implementations of Linux available.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mark076h, on 05/11/2008, -124/+10FIRST COMMENT!
    • jus1haz2, on 05/11/2008, -3/+26Well aren't you special.
    • nixr, on 05/11/2008, -12/+1BAG OF ASSES!!!!!
    • jb0nd38372, on 05/11/2008, -8/+7Your intelligence astounds me. Are you writing this on your apple 2c?
    • doctorfungi, on 05/11/2008, -1/+23If I had my way it would be your last too.
    • Stonekeeper, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5Apologies for comment abuse, but this is kinda important to those who don't know (and we're on the topic of security):
      There have been fake Cisco routers seized in various countries. These "chisco" routers are pretty close to the originals and have been supplied to lots of people in the US including goverment (I'm guessing that means edu too). There are fears that china have had a backdoor into US orgs/gov for years.

      This is worht it just for the slides at the end:
      http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread350381/p ...

      Just a heads up. Sorry again.
      • PaulOwen, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1No, no, no.

        The counterfeit CISCO routers have NOT been compromised - read your own links more carefully! The IMPLIED THREAT is that the counterfeited Cisco 1721 routers *could* potentially be compromised, but hey if you paid $230 for one instead of the list price of $1500, then you deserve to get crap.

        End of story - non story.
    • mossblaser, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Ah hello mark078h! I'd like you to meet a good friend of mine;

      mark078h, block list, block list, mark078h.
  • onionbagel724, on 05/11/2008, -67/+8Good for you, or Linux, or the NSA, or whatever. Auto dugg because Linux in title.
  • Croecop, on 05/11/2008, -73/+19SELinux, the platform of choice to invade human rights and destroy the consitution
    • Eezyville, on 05/11/2008, -6/+20Huh?
    • cyrix, on 05/11/2008, -7/+34Is that you Ballmer?
      • debuggercll, on 05/11/2008, -3/+27He's making a statement about the NSA, not Linux.
    • manitoba98xp, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4…okay?

      Bush owns an iPod, does that mean that the iPod is the MP3 player of choice for waging war in Iraq?
      • maninalift, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1It's a joke - he's not really suggesting that Linux is guilty by association
    • MattBD, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1Well, I use Kubuntu which has AppArmor by default instead.
  • Hydraulix, on 05/11/2008, -51/+12"You know SELinux is built to be virtually attack-proof..."

    Because nothing works once it's enabled.
  • TerriSchiavo, on 05/11/2008, -42/+12Wow that was a fun read. I nearly crapped myself from excitement.
    • chamberlanderic, on 05/11/2008, -25/+2yeah right, attack proof, linux , in goverment agency, with the title: attack proof. they are millions to try it.
      • expert01, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Mr. Spammer, how can I become a million?
  • spikeyone, on 05/11/2008, -14/+81"It's only secure because no one uses it" my ass.
    • debuggercll, on 05/11/2008, -11/+102My ass: It's only secure because no one uses it.
      • expert01, on 05/11/2008, -10/+11I see what you did there
      • itech7, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4huh.... there was an attempt to create a Linux virus which exploited a kernel bug some around in 1996 .... it was fixed ... till date .... not a single Linux virus exists for the exception above.
    • dinostabOMG, on 05/11/2008, -2/+25FTA: "Anyone who has a computer attached to the Internet (even transiently) understands these dangers."
      Aaaaahahahahaha
  • PHiZ187, on 05/11/2008, -34/+21You know if they put this much effort into securing it, they also designed the world's most difficult to detect backdoor. You think the NSA is going to just hand out secure computing tools? It goes against their mission of being able wiretap and backdoor everything under the sun.
    • jus1haz2, on 05/11/2008, -3/+45It is open source.
      • PHiZ187, on 05/11/2008, -17/+5Which is why they had to work so hard to hide it. Because people can view the code.
        • ToadLeg, on 05/11/2008, -3/+26That may make sense in the Hollywood world of 3D operating systems and 5 keystrokes to hack the Pentagon, but if you knew anything about open source you would know that's nonsense. There are many people in the world who can read the source code to a program and understand what it does. If a program designed to create a layer of security had any code in it that did not help achieve that goal, it would be very obvious.
          • PHiZ187, on 05/11/2008, -6/+5Yeah, and how many lines of code in the kernel and then the various subsystems? Even if you diffed the SELinux code to a trusted version, there are still ways to to obfuscate backdoors. For example, you can change the scope of a variable, so that you can then pass it data from a function that hasn't properly sanitized the data, boom, BoF. Eat a bag of dicks newb.
          • ToadLeg, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5@PHiZ187
            I'm sure in the specifications the NSA produced with the code they said "and this variable needs to not be properly sanitized..." I think you don't give open source programmers enough credit - if there was such a problem it would likely be fixed, and for the NSA it certainly would not look good that there were holes in their "unbreakable security system." If you set out to create a program to perform a certain task, you design it to do it properly. If they had set out to create backdoors, their code would probably look strange, and rather suspicious. This would be especially be true for a system that does not run as an application, but runs as a security layer with the kernel. If SELinux was doing anything that could be interacted with at the application level it would be very suspicious.

            This is basically the limit of my knowledge about it if I don't go back and reread the specifications for SELinux, but the most basic issue is simply that this is open source, so anybody can look at it exactly what it does. There is no magical way to hide what a program is doing when you can read its source.
          • noen, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Yes there are ways to insert a backdoor without being detected. You don't even have to change the source code. You simply re-write the compiler to insert the backdoor. All systems compiled will be compromised as will all future versions of the compiler. Even the disassembler will be subverted such that examining the binaries you will not see the actual running code but something else instead.

            Nor would the NSA have reason to worry as there are asymmetric backdoor in RSA key generators. An asymmetric backdoor can only be used by the attacker who plants it, even if the full implementation of the backdoor becomes public. Also, it is computationally intractable to detect the presence of an asymmetric backdoor under black-box queries.

            Trust is more valuable than gold. Do you trust the NSA?
          • PHiZ187, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2@ToadLeg
            Now, I think you're the one being unrealistic. I do not have some "3D operating system, 5 keystroke" conception of computer security. You, however seem to think that 1) people actually comb through code to find security bugs, 2) that it is a simple process. OpenBSD is the only distro I know that has made a concentrated code-review effort. It seems unlikely that the somewhat limited number of core linux contributors are going to spend their time analyzing a linux distro, SELinux, that is already reputedly hardened. Second, backdors/exploits are not going to just be a simple BoF that is discoverable by looking how memory is allocated in a single location. Exploits can involve complex interactions between functions, whose code is spread over multiple classes/functions. You are naively imputing the same ease at discovering complex, intentionally hidden backdoors as you accused me of believing in a hollywood version of computer security.
            Now, why might the NSA do this? What is their motivation? First, the number of people running a hardened linux OS (see also bastille Linux) is a small subset of people running linux. That is, they are kind of "self-selecting" as to whom the NSA might be interested in keeping an eye on. To put it coarsely, "people who have something to hide." The other group who might be interested in using a secure Linux would be foreign-state governments and government sponsored hackers (I'm looking at you china).
            So, do I know that the NSA wants to have systems backdoored? No. But I can entertain reasonable suspicions that they do want to.
      • known, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3Isn't OpenBSD most secure OS?
    • thestaton, on 05/11/2008, -18/+5my thoughts exactly.
      • expert01, on 05/11/2008, -6/+10Your thoughts don't count.
      • dafragsta, on 05/11/2008, -0/+11Look at it this way. If that's true, then you can count on pretty much every single operating system under the sun having the same back door. At least this is hardened against your garden variety hacker and script kiddie.
    • DigitalPioneer, on 05/11/2008, -2/+16jus1haz2 has a good point: how do you put a backdoor in open source software? It might be the world's most difficult to find, but it'll also be the world's most exploited.
    • AzureRise, on 05/11/2008, -0/+13The NSA has stated that what really makes Linux insecure is those non open binary drivers, like the ones you get from Nvidia for example.
  • someguy92, on 05/11/2008, -46/+6How did this get on the front page with only 36 diggs and 1 comment?
    • jmknsd, on 05/11/2008, -1/+10because it is a long article and the type of person who is interested in this stuff might actually read the article before posting a comment.
    • expert01, on 05/11/2008, -0/+11When it's 36 comments and 1 digg on the front page... then you can bitch.
  • Corgy, on 05/11/2008, -13/+94If you're running the 2.6 kernel, guess what? You have this security right now.
    • ekravchenko, on 05/11/2008, -3/+39That's what the article said. I don't know why you are being dugg down
    • jb0nd38372, on 05/11/2008, -4/+19I decided to Digg you both up, apparently you guys are the most intellegent posters thus far.
    • crazyjake, on 05/11/2008, -12/+3yeah, you two actually read the article!!

      people will digg this down because right now i am being the stereotypical piggyback commenter, and am basically saying the same thing as the person above me. but since i will have so many negative diggs people will not be able to resist reading my comment and any reply to this stating otherwise will prove my point.
    • thecheatah, on 05/11/2008, -3/+6Looks like im running it too.

      I...really dont care.
    • jakethecake, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Ubuntu 8.04 here, it has AppArmor default instead.
      But selinux is in the repos.
    • init100, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6Unless it is disabled, and many Linux distributors unfortunately disable SELinux.
  • draegloth, on 05/11/2008, -24/+4this article has entirely too many words.
  • SemiSarcastic, on 05/11/2008, -19/+6Dugg for being a long article.
  • chamberlanderic, on 05/11/2008, -36/+4yeah right, attack proof, linux , in goverment agency, with the title: attack proof. they are millions to try it.
    • yingjai, on 05/11/2008, -0/+20no idea what you just said
    • venuspcs, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2He said after the NSA brags about it being attack proof a million hackers and script kiddies gonna try and prove them wrong....

      That may actually be what the NSA intends....get a million hackers after there ass and they may actually be able to make it hack proof.
      • secrity, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3It has been out for at least a couple of years. RHEL4 and other distros have it.
  • Baffles, on 05/11/2008, -27/+3lol Linux
  • DraconPern, on 05/11/2008, -19/+8Too bad it is pretty much impossible to configure and the first step to troubleshooting problems is to disable it.
    • gplpark92, on 05/11/2008, -0/+10There are doors that lock
      And doors that don't

      There are doors that let you in
      And out
      But never open
      But there are trapdoors
      That you can't come back from.
    • init100, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Impossible to configure? It may have been that way in the early days, but today it isn't impossible at all. It requires the administrator to learn some fairly simple concepts, and then you are almost up and running.
  • atact88, on 05/11/2008, -20/+3The NSA and CIA always leave themselves a backdoor....
    • Protoss, on 05/11/2008, -1/+17In open source software? Sure, but it wouldn't be smart seeing as before anything gets put into the mainstream kernel, it's read through, line by line, to make sure there are no backdoors or exploits.
      • Tenlow, on 05/11/2008, -5/+3If it can be done, they're the ones to do it.
        • noen, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1It can be done. Someone who searches for a backdoor by reading the code sure does trust his compiler doesn't he?
  • OSuX, on 05/11/2008, -28/+3Haha, funniest ***** ever. ***** hypocrites whining about the _NSAKEY in Windows but suck at the tit of SELinux cause the NSA had a hand in it. Security is the lollipop you suck on. HAHA. Stop downloading child porn and you won't have to worry about the NSA, OK?
  • redsoc, on 05/11/2008, -12/+3Yay NSA Programmer...

    if (kern) goto out;

    tsec = current->security;
    err = avc_has_perm(tsec->sid, tsec->sid,
    socket_type_to_security_class(family, type,
    protocol), SOCKET__CREATE, NULL);
    out:
    return err;


    and not:

    if (!kern)
    tsec = current->security;
    err = avc_has_perm(tsec->sid, tsec->sid,
    socket_type_to_security_class(family, type,
    protocol), SOCKET__CREATE, NULL);
    return err;

    • oddtom, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7The kernel is loaded with goto statements. They're only a problem if used incorrectly. (PS: Your correction requires braces.)
    • trogdoor, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1It might be that the former is faster ( though I would expect an optimizing compiler to produce the same binary from either I am not sure ) and although I usually don't like goto statements ( almost to the point of not liking languages that allow it ) in this case it actually does make it clearer ( to me at least ).
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Goto is extremely useful when you have just a few exit conditions with similar clean up and want to cleanly handle all the error states that can happen. I use it a lot with serial handling code and pattern matching code.
  • jboettcher, on 05/11/2008, -16/+2Hmm.. NSA going after child porn now? I doubt it. So NSA runs SELinux and NASA runs DOS? (LOL this is pretty rich.
    • Corrosionx, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1The NASA runs whatever OS the Vic-20 runs on.
  • trentrezn0r, on 05/11/2008, -16/+3"but do you know how the National Security Agency (NSA) accomplish it?"
    But can you use accomplish using proper English when writing summary?
    • Protoss, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Have you read the comments lately?
    • sarixe, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2the name NSA refers to a collective of people, and sometimes people treat that as plural. like "Led Zeppelin are the best band in the world."
  • trogdoor, on 05/11/2008, -3/+46"Public networks like the Internet are dangerous places. Anyone who has a computer attached to the Internet (even transiently) understands these dangers."

    If only that were true
    • DestroyFascism, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3But thats what I have Anti Virus for with its minimum 24 hour old detection set.

      (Amazing how life changes from 1 minute to the next ; )
      • danjwray, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Did you mean *Maximum* 24 hour old detection set?
      • khaavren, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Antivirus? Whats that?
  • kumaroh, on 05/11/2008, -8/+11Back in university, I had a 3 or 4 linux servers running at my house and tried to install SELinux on one of them but the installation failed. (I was and still am a novice when it comes to linux. I just like to play around with it.) Never tried again. Maybe I should try it out.
    • foxtwofoxtwo, on 05/11/2008, -2/+18I don't know when you tried it and quit, but Linux has come a looooong way. I tried ubuntu a couple years ago and didn't like it at the time. Now I have it as the only operating system on my laptop.

      Just something to think about.
    • init100, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5If you want to try SELinux, use Fedora or CentOS. They have had SELinux for a long time, and the implementation is pretty mature.
    • DestroyFascism, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2If you have SATA try reversing the order in the PC or placing the HDD with Linux first. Also with SATA put the boot into the drive you want to boot from. Not hd0
      • SteveMax, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Note that his problem was with SELinux, not with Linux. He had Linux running already.
    • MattBD, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Best way for a newbie to try Linux is to run it in VirtualBox - you only really lack things like Compiz. It means you can still do things like installing stuff that you can't do when running from a live cd.
  • stalinnnn, on 05/11/2008, -7/+1I don't get it...
  • finanigan, on 05/11/2008, -1/+12Red Hat has done a lot of good work to make SELinux easier to configure and use. If anyone thinks that SELinux is too difficult and hasn't tried it in a while, I'd recommend you grab a copy of CentOS and start playing. There's great documentation at http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL ...
  • oneredeye, on 05/11/2008, -2/+43What's with all the troll comments?
    • foxtwofoxtwo, on 05/11/2008, -0/+41It's a Linux related story; it's practically troll-bait to begin with. People don't like what they don't understand and that dislike is magnified by the anonymity of the internet.
      • santaliqueur, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I don't think I've ever read such a true statement.
    • SonnyW, on 05/11/2008, -0/+22It's because digg is becoming more and more like youtube, every single day.
    • DestroyFascism, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Anonymous Whimsical comment slamming otherwise good technology.
    • Amiga500, on 05/11/2008, -7/+2Your mom is out on parole and the hordes are horny.
  • rogerlam1, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Linux has definitely come a long way to simplify security for user management. The question is rather it needs to be further simplified like what you see in Windows' security controls. I don't think general web surfing users yet benefits from operating Linux yet. The barrier to entry vs. benefits does not appeal to most users. Its not the question of cost really, I am sure most OEM like to have a second or third competitor of MS to offer their customer. If Mac OS is independent, plenty will offer it as an alternative .
    • DestroyFascism, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2*Ahem....

      general web surfing users benefit the most absolutely hands down.

      "The barrier to entry vs. benefits does not appeal to most users"
      Like having to go to a forum to find out how an entirely new OS works? Oh boo hoo....
    • joeanon, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Yea I agree... if Linux does what you need... then chances are you're very secure using it.

      Now days it even supports flash right out of the box or it's easy to install. as a surfing station since it has firefox... Linux is hard to beat, especially considering it's hardware support is improving and it's cool that they add to their driver database unlike a windows install disk which won't have newer stuff on it.

      So many times you'll find a Linux disro can support hardware out of the box that Windows doesn't

      BUT.... the windows drivers, once you download is almost always better and a lot of times it's A LOT better.

      But the practical reality is that computers cost (most people) money and these days they cost real money to run, especially 24/7, so consolidation and virtualization and such is popular.

      BUT, what is most ideal is using the OS that does everything you need all in one. For now, for most people, considering hardware costs, the desktop solution HAS to be Windows or Mac.

      Mostly because windows doubles as a pretty kick ass game machine while even if you're lucky enough for you game to run under Mac or Linux in most cases it will run slower.

      For, for the money, Windows does something that's growing in importance to consumers..... 3D gaming.
      And it does it sigificantly better.

      I think Vista should have had a liter version because XP was ultimately so popular and lasted so long there are many computers that have been lucky enough to run for 5-10 years (the long side of comptuer life) and people may not use them 24/7 as I do, but at the same point XP does everything they need, and since they don't leave the PC ON their seucirty risk drop.

      So, you have probably millions of or tens of millions of 1 ghz ish computers our there with 256megs of ram, still putting away with XP. Put Vista on that and it's horrible, but the gap between OS releases has a lot to do with it since it represents the average hardware profile they need to build for.

      That's what Vista didn't do. It didn't build for the average hardware profile of INSTALLED users rather more like the average profile of the times. In this case we have probably an unheard of boom in CPU power with dual and quad core 2 systems from Intel. So, Vista works pretty good with modern hardware, but the hardware profile was too diverse for them to slap all the Vista eye candy on and add yet more useles services without some intelligent means of turning all that off perhaps based on yoru hardware profile.

      The problem with Mac will always be that Apple owns it.
      Of all the companies, Apple really has the most monopolistic and completely closed history.
      It's more fair to say MS was a pretty awesome company that's been corrupted by it's own power.
      Apple was always a very tightly controlled platform that tended to not reward developers since it was ... just too closed. So app makers had to suffer with hardware limitations cause by the reality of leaning toward proprietary hardware profiles.

      It's actually quite an 'open source' kind of thing that MS did by opening up to developers and hardware makers. They are pretty much the medium by which all these markets could come together and thrive.

      Anyone could make an OS, but making it open to hardware and software developers is the key.

      That's really why open source exists today when you think about it. MS has moved too much toward higher prices for inconsistent apps and a telling desire to retire working platform and force users to upgrade. Still, the open model they commercialy poineered is dominating from games to apps to viruses. Everyone develops win32.

      The entire concept of cross platform.. only really exists as a extension of the long desire to run apps on Windows... and other platforms. WINE and other projects are great piece of work, but the exist to run apps made by the vast majority of developers.

      I think in this case.. you guys should consider using government, not market forces to get what you want.

      Rather than pretending you'll ever defeat MS in an open market... where people get paid for working and things cost money and hardware innovation (unlike software) demand money. You can make the greatest OS in the world out of your moms basement with no money. You can't design new .01 nm chips just by visualizing them, they have to be build, tested and tweaked. Yet, all these profits are truly interlinked and reliant to some degree on each other.

      Apple looks great, but had we went with them in the first place the hardware today would almost certainly not be to the leve it is now. That's market forces and MS does will because they have many loyal developers, a lot of money and an unbelievable user base, owning DirectX doesn't hurt especially with Xbox looking like a long term champ in the console world.

      So... instead of fighting all that and trying to change the economics of the situation.

      You should instead use your democracy to consider programming API's as they do other infrastructures which are required to be open. That is, Verizon can never buy the telephone poles themselves and then control which wires get hung and beyond that they even have to share in some cases.

      Just do that to what is clearly the one major OS in the world... open DirectX and .NET and you're there. You can now run all the ***** WIN32 programs and with some driver help the DX games also. MS is doing most of the work for you with .NET

      All this other stuff is just dead end projects that are truly stop gap solutions in most cases until profit driven companies take over. You simple CAN'T write code that good, you're not inventing new math, you're just programming and anything you do is easily copied with a safe degree of patent distancing.

      Why fight with wealth when that's clearly Linux weakest resource. The real point should not be to propogate Linux, but rather to open Windows API's because it's clear that's a major motivation.

      You'll never catch up in gaming in my opinion. Linux has gotten easier, sure, but it's not really even close to Mac or Linux and I've been using it off and on since the 90's when you had to rawrite your slackware boot disks and likely had to BUY a copy of Linux since my 28.8 couldn't handle an ISO.

      People sure do want a lot more for free these days.

      What you really want is open API's so all this work isn't just repetition.

      • daverave999, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Have you thought about getting a blog? :P
        That's a very valid point you make about getting the APIs opened up. But it is the trump card for Windows, so I think it is unlikely to happen without legal intervention. It's certainly not something I can see them doing voluntarily!
  • EvansHall, on 05/11/2008, -4/+8I like totally understand what this article is talking about.

    /sarcasm
    • DestroyFascism, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Its adding a second tier of security basically.

      The Linux kernel operates in its own space.
      The user operates in their own user space.
      The 2 never meet unless required by software or the operator.
      The Second tier using a Kernel security module adds a third space that controls the Kernel and the user. It effectively removes opportunistic hack attempts and shields the kernel from poor users / software.

      Basically its doing the job of double checking the software environment from possible hacks and poor security in third party applications. The "firewall" for the OS is therefore in built and duel layer, it does not need to check the code being run saving the CPU time over a "firewall" solution (I use firewall as a term but its not actually correct). The only time its used is during a Kernel runtime check or call out request and it simply checks the user space security is correct and then allows the code to operate.
  • Poofainter888, on 05/11/2008, -20/+3I agree, Linux is a great hobby OS, but it is nothing more than a toy, which is why it is so 'secure'. Why would someone bother with the effort required to write an exploit, when it only applies to %2 of the whole computing userbase?
    • MattBD, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Don't tell Google that, their servers all run Linux, not to mention loads of consumer electronics, a huge proportion of the world's supercomputers as well as the desktop users (who may possibly outnumber Mac users, though it's harder to tell with Linux how many people are using it)
    • Jexie, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2"Why would someone bother with the effort required to write an exploit, when it only applies to %2 of the whole computing userbase?"
      Bragging rights, I think there are more than a few hackers out there that would like claim the crown of exploiting the most secure OS in the world. 2% desktop userbase, up that figure significantly when you're talking about servers. Bonus pts for actually saying its so secure because its only a toy - possibly one of the stupidest things I have ever read on digg.
    • Poofainter888, on 05/11/2008, -4/+1Lol, you linux guys just don't give up do you?
      • MattBD, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Well, I'm sorry, but what you said is quite patently untrue. It might not have a huge share of the desktop market, but it's everywhere in other forms.
  • freze, on 05/11/2008, -11/+5I rather not use things created by the nsa. There are probably backdoors build into this just for the nsa. I suppose there are alternatives to selinux?
    • nxsty, on 05/11/2008, -0/+12How could SELinux contain backdoors, when it's open source and the code has to be reviewed on public mailing list before it's merged?
    • Kr0ntab, on 05/11/2008, -0/+9There's no back doors built into the SE-Linux components that have ever been discovered. The source code is completely open and available for public scrutiny, and the NSA has a vested interest in the SE-Linux initiative, namely code they can trust and completely customize to meet their needs. Besides, there's a million low-tech ways for the NSA to accomplish "other" objectives. :-)

      To answer your question though, Novell heads up a project called "AppArmor" which similarly compartmentalizes processes using easy to understand templates. There is much debate over which is more secure, but generally speaking, most security processionals agree that SE-Linux type-enforcement has some inherent advantages. Either method, however, greatly reduces a systems attack surface.
      • freze, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I see, thanks for the answear
      • noen, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0Why would you put the backdoor in the source? Put it in the compiler and do it in such a way that the disassembler won't show the altered code but only what you want to be seen.
    • euvirtual, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6Even if it had backdoors, there should be at least one person as paranoid as you that knows how to read the code, and would have warned everybody by now. It is open source after all, so if no one found a backdoor after all this time, you should be safe.
    • daverave999, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1If anything is likely to have its code checked thoroughly, it's stuff coming from the Government!
  • MoNaRkyRuLeS, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6App Armour is much easier to use than any of them using the same framework principles. Where can you get it? In about any version of SuSE or Ubuntu Linux. It comes pre-installed. Learns your surfing habits and your done!

    Whereas Microsoft controls your control of Vista Security to benefit them!!! So ...oops who's that coming in the backdoor??? Oh NOes.........!!! Relax people! ....it's just us, M$ fiddling with your personal data for Marketing and Advertisement Benefits (now that we're using Proxy Attacks to gain Control of Yahoo)!!! NOW, just go back to sleep all you dumbass consumers and STFU!!!! LOLz
    • joeanon, on 05/11/2008, -3/+1Yea it's not bad, but stuff like pfsense is a lot better IMO.

      I think you're mostly mistaked, Vista has only made windows more secure. I've used it extensively and it's without a doubt far more secure... just read up on th PWN to OWN contest results.

      Linux is simply not desktop friendly enough for the average person , it's not really even an option unless your a power user type.

      Not having one click installers is killing Linux IMO, people will NEVER go for package managers and they shouldn't because they mostly suck ass.

      Just because everything is free in Linux doesn 't mean you should compared a giant bloated Linux install to Windows right out of the box.

      There are many higher quality apps for Win32 than there are for Linux.

      The problem with software firewalls is they rely on the users network knowledge.

      If windows user just rushed into Linux, they'd be downloaded malware in a week and clicking YES or ALLOW for every window that pops up and annoys them.

      Linux helps mostly because it's permissions keep the OS from being exploited easily. Beyond that it just takes a dumb user to install the wrong program and any OS is infected.

      The linux market share is just so small and most users are too smart to make targeting the platform productive.

      The times have changed.. Windows is getting fairly secure... just deal with it. It's still not nearly as good at time sharing or whatever you want to call it. Linux likely still has a major latency advantage, but it's not like it's real time.
      • LastDitchHero, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2User friendly is a relative term. Yea, my brother may not be able to install Linux but he can use Linux Desktop software. You also couldn't get him to install Windows either.

        Now for software quality. Sure Windows has some high quality software. So does Linux. Actually for as little market share as Linux has the selection of software is amazing.

        Linux does have on click installers. They are called a .DEB file for Debian base systems, .RPM for Redhat and Redhat based systems, and Slackware has right click install support for tar.gz files.

        Your right about one thing, if a user select ok, then the user will hose their system. But unlike Windows, Linux has a package manager of safe software a user can download. So I don't see your problem with package managers.

        Not saying that Linux is going to blow Windows out of the water but Linux's day in the desktop area is coming now that computers are such common commodities and the software is just good enough for the sub notebook market.
  • cabazorro, on 05/11/2008, -3/+38Idiocy begets idiocy:
    Idiot: Government? Must have some back door.
    kernel maintainer: Here's the code, look at it and tell me.
    Idiot: Er .. you cannot tell? Come on! is the NSA.
    kernel maintainer: I'm looking at it right now, not only me, but hundred of developers around the world. Do you understand that?
    Idiot: Is the government man! You can't trust them!
    kernel maintainer: So what are you running anyway?
    Idiot: I'm running Vista.
    • MoNaRkyRuLeS, on 05/11/2008, -8/+1So because I mention Linux and App Amour, you dug my comment. While you are probably the Idiot using Vista!!!! Who's the Fool? ;)
      • MoNaRkyRuLeS, on 05/11/2008, -6/+0You use Redhat? .....so this is about Linux inner competition? No wonder Linux never grows an Install base with fools like you using it. Go back to Vista, it suits you better!!! :D
      • euvirtual, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7You know, just because cabazorro's post was written after yours doesn't mean it was a response to your post (or anyone else for that matter, although I suspect it was directed at freze's comment, just above yours).
    • Simonft, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8The funny thing is, Vista did leave a back door. It was to enable police to quickly bypass security and access files on other people computers. The tool they use is called COFEE. http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/29/microsoft-gives ...
      • Amiga500, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2COFEE is a tool that automates data collection. It does not break any encryption or crack codes except for 3rd party apps that use their own weak algorithms, or no actual encryption at all.

        COFEE gives you the same power that you would have if your removed the hard drive from the computer and scanned it on another machine. Except putting this functionality on a tiny thumb drive greatly speeds up the time it takes and doesn't require the same amount of work.

        The only backdoor that is open here is the one your boyfriend is scheduled to fill tonight.
        • spiffytech, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2It's designed for nifty things like copying the RAM of a running machine, decrypt passwords, monitor network activity. Decrypting passwords without authorization sounds like a backdoor to me.
          • Amiga500, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Wrong. A backdoor is a hidden function within a computer program or operating system designed to bypass any security in place with little more than a simple command. It's a specific design choice built into said program/os. A program which decrypts data is not the definition of a backdoor.
    • joeanon, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2***** ... Vista JUST made it to the 3rd day of PWN to OWN beating out Mac.

      AND the exploit that got it was through Flash.

      Airbook vs Vista vs Ubuntu... Ubuntu is the only one that didn't fall.

      So, unless your a fanboy, the facts are that Vista is fairly secure. Not only is it standing up to attacks but it's also getting patched less than it's compeitors and getting attacked many MANY times more.

      You guys just have no concept of reality beyond your fanboy polarized obsessive opinions.

      All OS have windows of vulnerability where exploits are not patched, beyond that you consider the populairty the number of patches and the number of actual intrusion from exploits... NOT from idiotic users who have GOD as their password and no virus protection and enjoy running without a firewall.

      For what it does... Vista is the most impressive OS out there really. It's secure, performs well on dual core systems (far better than XP usually) and it runs 10 times more software than it's closest competitor.

      I don't think you realize how much harder it is to support so much hardware and software and still be secure.

      Linux has it easy.
      BSD even easier as their application suppor is strict.
      Even MAC makes program installation complex

      Windows offers simple one click installs... which like or not is how you have to make a desktop OS to gain any real populairty. Software repositories are fun and all, but the average PC user will NEVER go for that setup... at least not unless it's managed and automatically updates with all the latest software, but in the end that's just a giant waste of time to even attempt

      So, when you consider what Windows does and how many more idiots use the platform, you'd have to be dumb to not be impressed with Vista.

      It's clealry hanging with the big boys security wise and it's far easier to use and has at least 10 times the software support as Mac or Linux or likely both combined.

      You don't have to like it, but to not realize how much harder of a position that puts your OS in is just denial.
      • gemmakicn, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1what about mac's drag and drop installs?
    • noen, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2It is possible to insert a backdoor without altering the source code. A compiler can be written so that it is triggered during compilation and inserts the backdoor. Done correctly, even the disassembler will not see the altered code. There are also asymmetric backdoors that can only be used by the attacker and are nearly impossible to detect.
  • tjlsmith, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3Don't we already have this? It's called OpenBSD?
  • joeanon, on 05/11/2008, -3/+1Yea why would you use Linux for security when BSD exists... I guess if you have a Linux only program, but beside that BSD is just lighter and simpler and well pretty much known to be more secure in the long run... ALSO widely used which is very important.

    But... hey go NSA .. I guess.

    Isn't it more likely the OS is just one big key logger designed to spy on anyone who needs that much security :P

    Who trusts the NSA anymore ?
    • itech7, on 05/11/2008, -1/+0BSD isn't popular like Linux and BSD is for servers only. The user-targeted support is very less in BSDs rather than Linux. To the contrary, Linux can serve as a user OS and also as a server OS.
  • itech7, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1and BTW, Windows bugs and virus antidotes take a hell lot of time to arrive after the hole is discovered. this is not the case with open-source software. as lakhs of developers are working on Linux, the bug is fixed almost immediately.
  • gemmakicn, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1To be honest, while i can understand the architectural principles, i'm not able to go line by line through the kernel and understand everything, there's just too much code, and i have better things to do.

    That said, i had 2 thoughts about this,

    Firstly i would not trust a free donut from the NSA, let alone a free operating system, they are amoral people who care nothing for privacy and if they could get direct access to our thoughts, i'm sure they would have a party that would make a roman orgy look tame, so the chances of them not trying something (even if its a case of they plan to patch things later, while releasing something pristine to be picked over now) is about nil.

    Secondly, if they aren't trying something like this, what are we paying the for (against our will, and in violation of pretty much every law in the constitution), they should be putting bugs into secure operating systems, because their mandate is to learn information that people don't want them to know and exploit it for the alleged benefit of the US....
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.