cyber-"terrorism"?

[Ben Laurie]

Brian Gladman wrote:
>>Ben Laurie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think their point, and I'm inclined to agree, is that of the things
>>>you say we need to be secure, the least important is the trusted boot -
>>>and if I have a security kernel running, I need it even less.
>>
>>What exactly is a "secure kernel" here? How does it help?
> 
> 
> http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/
> 
> I couldn't resist posting this link on ukcrypto!

FreeBSD 5 has similar stuff (TrustedBSD was rolled in recently, I 
believe), and all the BSDs have systrace. And a pile of related things. 
More secure is EROS (http://www.eros-os.org/).

And so on.

However, none of them solve buffer overflows. They just mitigate their 
awfulness.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff