IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New So why do we still need Palladium?
Strong support for the open-source operating system within the government came from a surprising quarter in early 2001 with the release of Security-Enhanced Linux from the National Security Agency, which for decades stymied researchers' and technology companies' efforts to create broadly available strong encryption.

SE Linux adds military-strength architecture improvements to Linux, the most obvious security improvement being mandatory access controls, or MACs, based on technology developed by Secure Computing Corp. The Cyberspace Policy Institute plans to also add authentication and key management features to the operating system.

Such technologies make computers much less susceptible to attacks. Mark Westerman, managing partner with network consultant Westcam, installed the SE Linux access controls on a critical server for one of his customers after a common security flaw, known as a buffer overflow, allowed a hacker to take control of the company's server. Westerman configured the access rules but left the buffer overflow unpatched on the server as a test.

When the hacker came back a second time to the server and attempted to gain control of the process, the access controls limited what the attacker could do. Instead of taking control of the computer, the hacker could only crash the service that had the buffer overflow, but do no other damage.

"With the access controls, the customer doesn't have to worry about the next buffer overflow that comes along," said Westerman at a panel discussion at this week's LinuxWorld Conference and Expo. "SE Linux gives you military grade security at open-source cost."
Isn't this what Palladium is supposed to address? Processes are isolated from each other, and each process has its own access controls. All done in software. Tell me again, what does Palladium gain us?
===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
Expand Edited by drewk Aug. 16, 2002, 12:03:57 PM EDT
New Because we "need" MS to have control of everything. >:-)
New What remains baffling to me is not the techno-issues per se
It is about tactics! By now almost anyone remotely interested in 'IT' and not asleep for last 10-12 years, is aware of M$' revenue generating methods, what its current cash cows are, and aware of at least a certain portion of the numerous bad- on through illegal- actions it has taken in the past.

Given all this, the also evidently declining prospects for similar new cash cows + M$' unswerving allegiance to all the methods it has used in the past - even in the face of pending legal [action ??]: why is it NOT an obvious tactic to simply, notice re any new product they claim to be developing:

Where The Gotcha Lurks?

This almost before.. any exhaustive analysis of what they have overlooked, spun, screwed up, etc. (however easier / more fun is this part of the task). *HOW* are they planning to guarantee a % of all the action - This Time?

See, I think that the detailed techno explanations (even.. and maybe most! .. the brilliant analyses) ought not precede this Gotcha analysis: these are necessary and appropriate sleuthing to do BUT - these should not be #1 topic in the aim to attract attention to the latest ploy.

The non-tech are merely intimidated, have evoked in them all those Ivory Tower stereotypes.. and lose interest - before the punch line,
What is the form of the Newest Scam ???
THAT is what I believe should be revealed, discussed, hashed-out and Publicized First. As in, they're trying 'it' Again!

Does this make any sense re 'tactics'?



Ashton
     So why do we still need Palladium? - (drewk) - (2)
         Because we "need" MS to have control of everything. >:-) -NT - (Another Scott)
         What remains baffling to me is not the techno-issues per se - (Ashton)

Phrasers on STUN er SHUN!
39 ms