From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,b95a522100671708 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!news-in.mts.net!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: For the AdaOS folks References: <1PTAd.1218$0y4.421@read1.cgocable.net> <1vemlj8wqr9ea$.qyecszhsmtqa$.dlg@40tude.net> <1b48kdfqsk3mw.7gajq12fsa82.dlg@40tude.net> <52fBd.42256$nV.1324414@news20.bellglobal.com> <_gHBd.14666$0y4.10314@read1.cgocable.net> <8rz51zshvp8k$.gvir0kpiedzk.dlg@40tude.net> <1cza5d5x7snmd.lr7wfm9fdsvd.dlg@40tude.net> <1hwsfqc0hx63i$.1dl0hkengaf6i$.dlg@40tude.net> <1klgtuv6sbypt.1wlc9u1ixz7ua$.dlg@40tude.net> <24hf82mgtexu$.c07xlxejxm1c$.dlg@40tude.net> In-Reply-To: <24hf82mgtexu$.c07xlxejxm1c$.dlg@40tude.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 13:00:04 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.223.163 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1104861535 198.96.223.163 (Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:58:55 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:58:55 EST Organization: Bell Sympatico Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7433 Date: 2005-01-04T13:00:04-05:00 List-Id: Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:44:17 -0500, Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: >>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> >>>But in our hypothetical OS each possible way of access will be represented >>>by some safe system object. These objects, when properly designed will >>>provide necessary administrative services. >> >>If you are a night watchman for a Mall, which situation makes it >>easier to sleep at night when you've locked up and gone home? >> >> 1. A mall with one or two doors on the outside to be >> locked and checked. >> 2. A mall with thousands of doors on the outside to be >> locked and checked. >> >>The answer is obvious. Sure, it is ok for other doors to exist >>inside the mall (for each store), which can be locked, but it >>only makes sense to choke the security at a minimal number >>of points. > > But you can approach the problem in other ways. You could change people to > make impossible for somebody to steal. You could make objects unusable when > stolen etc. How much chance do you think that this has of working with PCs, laptops, servers etc. that might run an new O/S? You're not a practical man. >>>Do you have one "gate" for hard drive I/O? >> >>Yes, actually. The kernel controls the issuing of the IDE >>commands, so that no process can permanently destroy the >>IDE drive (which can be done, if certain commands are issued). >>Not to mention that partition scope(s) must be enforced. > > It is no different from handling TCP/IP sockets. So the problem lies > elsewhere above. Anybody may try to open a file. I'm just going to bite my lip on this one. >>File systems mitigate access to the thousands of objects >>that exist within the file system. In a hierarchical system >>of directories, you have upper levels of choke points (in >>parent directories), as well as the ability to control >>access on the object itself. > > Yes, that is the point. Files are primitive, but objects. It is much easier > to enforce security in a hierarchical system than in a flat sea of > unstructured data. But a firewall prevents you from accessing any of my files at home ;-) and my files at work. Sure, there is also an account+password, more networking, and more controls behind it. But the one I really count on Dmitry, is that firewall. >>>Do you need a firewall to tunnel open/close/read/write to floppy >>>drives? It would be nonsense. >> >>Maybe its not your floppy. Maybe it belongs to >>another user (perhaps a student/coworker/spouse). > > But how a tunnel might help with that? It does not know who is the owner. Not a problem. I can determine who accesses the floppy when it is mounted (look up the mount command). >>>The problem is that network protocols do not >>>have safety of a file system. >> >>A file system is confined. > > Come on, there were multi-user OSes before Windows. Even UNIX pretended to > be one. So? Who gets an account? (approved folk). Who is on the internet? (everyone, including hackers, nobody excluded) There is a difference, and there are other differences also. >>Not at all. While it is not the entire answer to network >>security, you court disaster without one. You will not find >>one network security expert to suggest what you are promoting. > > Sure, why should they kill a hen carrying the gold eggs? (:-)) It sounds like the golden egg is on your system(s) - especially if you don't believe in firewalls ;-) > Did you ever > hear from any company selling anti-virus software that the only problem > with viruses is OS? I'm not going to bite. I'll just bite my lip instead ;-) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg