Slashdot Mirror
'Unbreakable Linux'
Zadig writes "It appears as if Dell, Oracle, and Red Hat CEOs have decided to make 'Unbreakable Linux'. Could a giant arise amidst today's insecure and constantly patched linux world that could hold the title of Unbreakable Linux? I doubt it, but it will be fun to try, what are your thoughts?" There's a similar article on CNet.
This will be Unbreakable Linux against United Linux? Match at 11...
did he just call linux insecure?
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that linux is a very secure OS, at least compared to the alternatives.
Is Sam Jackson forcing Bruce Willis onto the dev team?
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Let me get this straight...Oracle is helping to make an "Unbreakable Linux"?
So how much money do we get when some admin forgets to patch zlib or whatever? $100 million?
They can work day and night to make Linux more secure, but if the customers don't maintain the systems, they're perfectly breakable.
I'll take my $100M now.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
WINDOWS haha, just kidding, Why do we have to go with the term unbreakable how gullible do they think we are???? In order to have services people want, need, and desire you are required to leave a certain amount of openness for the product to function and that openness can sometimes be exploited. It would be so much better IMHO to say we are coming out with a standard that is more secure than ever before with a dedication to updating or something ya know. What do you guys think?
***I GOT NUTHIN***
And I really don't think Bruce Willis was that good in it. You can't be great everytime, I guess.
Let's learn the lesson taught by "Unbreakable Oracle." In short, it was broken.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
What are these companies thinking. Everyone knows that it is technically impossible to have a "unbreakable" system... oh, wait. My mistake. Oracle has had one for a while now... ahem.
--Kevin
This already exists. It's called OpenBSD.
How about "Usable Linux" or "GrammaCanUsix"?
I have been pwned because my
Unbreakable isn't.
Doesn't matter whether you're talking about a database, an operating system, or a bank vault. The only way to make something unbreakable is not to make it in the first place.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Will they be able to get Bruce Willis to play the part of Linus.
Oh wait.
I have always found Redhat unbearable, so how is this new? You guys made a typo, right?
unbreakable protractor? In the end, it turns out these things are not so unbreakable after all... Kind of like calling a ship "The unsinkable". We all know how well that works.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I guess they won't be calling it Unbreakable GNU/Linux (UGLi) for obvious reasons.
Anybody want a peanut?
they won't sell this to Norwegian museums!
Trollem mirabilem hanc subnotationis exigiutas non caperet
You mean like using a 5-inch thick steel case, or do you mean just removing all the network options in the kernel??
Don't quote me on this.
To quote Oracle CEO Larry Ellison
Taking on IBM? Taking on IBM mainframes? That is truly a serious statement.
If nobody ever gets (got?) fired for buying IBM, what does this mean?
Seriously, to have a secure system, most of it can be done automatically.. apt-get update every night will keep a server relatively secure. Now, if it's set up wrong in the first place (cough cough Redhat), then you have other problems.. but keeping things updated, as well as monitoring attacks (snort) will cover most of the bases. I just wish securityfocus would make a customizable mailing list emailing on new vulns.. it would beat reading bugtraq all the time =)
How can you ever make it unbreakable? True they can try and make it less breakable... Well this sounds about as hopeful as the great United Linux plan!
i do agree with the replys stating that unbreakable is impossible, building a Linux distro with security as the major factor is allways a good idea... so i wont bash em for trying, (get it? bash# em lol)
forgive the above spelling error :P
anyway, it seems to me that such a goal as "unbreakable" is not a truely obtainable goal.
nothing is perfect, and if they acknowlege that it won't be perfect it shouldn't be called "unbreakable"
Don't get me wrong, i think it is a great idea to make a distro with security in mind, but lets be realistic.
proxy
Will it be called Titanux?
No intention to be troll...
No system is secure in the face of inept admins. OTOH, most commercial operating systems out there can be secured by a good admin.
heheheh, I can see the ads now...
... what do you mean it's been broken?... buffer overflows?!?!?! ... ladies and gentlemen, apparently you might as well unplug your computer now cuz ur fuX3d...
/narrator >
< narrator >
from the makers of oracle9i: can't break it, can't break in....
<
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
how about a fun-to-use linux?
I was hoping this article was about Dell selling desktop computers and laptops preinstalled with Redhat, not only servers... Would be a good step towards Linux becoming a mainstream OS
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
Another lesson that this new coalition should learn is humility. I would hope after the "Unbreakable" campaign Oracle launched, and the blowback it received, that they'd take the time to tone down their attitude and ensure they're somewhere near as unbreakable as they'd like to think. If their claims aren't so grandiose they're less likely to suffer an explosive userland reaction when a flaw is (and there will be flaws, it's just Murphy's law) is discovered.
Otherwise, I applaud the idea. Linux can benefit from a hardened, secure-from-the-box distribution initiative powered by folks with the pockets to fund the massive codewalks it will take to tighten things up. OpenBSD brought several benefits to the BSD community, I can see this doing much the same thing.
Isn't the NSA developing a security enhanced linux? I would look here if I really wanted a secure linux.
First of all, they're not talking about the OS. Oracle is not helping redhat shape up it's security in any way. What it /is/ talking about is making databases 'unbreakable' by clustering them. No single point of failure.
Why linux/dell? Cause compared to a couple hundred thousand dollar sun 4500 or hp V class machine, it's all but pennies on the dollar!
Have I been wrong all this time?
We'll get "The Sixth Sense" Co-Branded Windows... "I see Blue Screens..."
Shift happens. Fire it up.
A spokesman confirmed that 'Unbreakable Linux' machines will ship without any I/O devices and be encased in a 10 foot cube of concrete.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
With so many distro's out there, with the consolidation of the biggies (Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse, etc) into two camps, we should see all of the features that each excels at combine into a few very good distros, which will help the cause because many companies (and schools, like mine) won't use it, because there's no standard, too hard to use/install, and there's no programs to use that are compatible (I know that's not true--but that's what evaluators and those who make the final decision say, and use for their reasoning.) The techies at my school, me included, are now putting out a few copies of OpenOffice.org 1.0 on windows 95 machines as test cases, and are trying to get Linux to run, K12LTSP.org edition, based off of Red Hat 7.3, just got new version, if it works great, may continue to distribute. The only thing I wish Red Hat had was such an easy to intall interface as Mandrake does. (Don't get me wrong, Red Hat's easy for me) But for those who don't know what they're doing, it's hard. That's why this combination will benefit the entire Linux and open source communities, because they're combining the strengths of several distros that are very popular, and are often chosen as test cases.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Its called OpenBSD.
(yeah, yeah, I know BSD isn't linux. It's a joke)
----
One of us needs to stick ones' head in a bucket of ice water.
- Hobbes
...Dell and Oracle would certainly lend cred to the PHBs (who don't find any in Redhat. Really, they don't - don't kid yourself).
And with PHBs being more comfortable everywhere, that means the possibility of more ISV stuff which is currently held up by politics (as opposed to tech issues) alone.
And that would be Good (TM)
---
Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.
An editor saying Linux is insecure and doubting the feasibility of a secure Gnu/Linux distribution, calling it "fun to try". Whoa.
Trollem mirabilem hanc subnotationis exigiutas non caperet
and STOP shipping with WU-FTPD :-).
...I'm sure alot of hackers are going to try and see how 'unbreakable' it really is.
---
Always standing, I am a tree awaiting the lightning. -Samael, Crown
No wonder linux is in such a hopeless state of copying and reinventing what's already in BSD: it has too many cooks with the NIH syndrome thinking they need to create an entirely new distribution rather than improving an existing distribution, or better yet, just improving FreeBSD, which is already better than any of *linux.
According to many posts, if I configure my NT box correctly it is also unbreakable... if it took linux this long to make an unbreakable box, then I guess NT is better, right?
Im just kidding
mod me down anyways
I was about ready to say that Slashdot doesn't like Oracle, but then I remembered that it's the first Wednesday of the month. Silly me!
If you leave it in the box and install openbsd instead.
What secure, "unbreakable" apps would they put on there?
My list:
man
ls
ping
who
First, they will rewrite the kernel and all the GNU utils in Java. The X Window system will be rewritten in java as well, and all instances of gcc from the system will be stripped. Bash and associated shells will be removed from the system, instead providing a SQL> prompt. Remember, ls ~ == SELECT * FROM ~.
The whole thing will be packaged with Oracle's Java-based installer. After 40 days and nights of installation time, the machine will run so slow that no one would even consider breaking into it.
In summary, the entire package is estimated to cost $55,000 USD.
It's part of marketing Linux to the stupid people - ie, the ones who use Microsoft stuff now.
One of the advantages of Linux (and often other Open Source stuff, and other UNIXes) is that you need to have a clue to be able to make it work. So it follows that you have a higher proportion of clued people using/administrating/developing etc on Linux than you do on the M$ crap.
Stupid people think that you buy the product (the latest incarnation of Windows, IIS or whatever), plug it in, and it's "secure" - or whatever else it's been touted as. Clued people understand that there's more to it.
And that, I think, is why most Linux (or BSD or whatever else) installations tend to work better - they've been done by someone with CLUE.
I saw the word "unbreakable" in connection with two concepts in the article: 1) The partnership between the corporate weasels; 2) The fault-tolerant nature of cluster computing. Just to stress the point, I didn't see anything related to exploitability or the absence thereof.
Its pretty unbreakable now, its the software apps and hardware that breaks. Same with Solaris, our boxes support millions of users, but a few memory leaks in java, few oracle bad blocks, sun cpu's with bad cache, abnormal network traffic, etc...
If they are just talking about their clustering solution, thats pretty cheesy. You could cluster a bunch of NT boxes to get the same effect. Sounds like they just want to sell linux on a bunch of clustered IBM machines running Oracle.
Is it me or is all of this "United Linux" & "Unbreakable Linux" crap completely forgetting the point of Linux in the first place? I'm not saying its bad, or its good, but its definetly not GNU.
Hey, I'm a BSD user anyways, but I think that the last month has shaped the way that Linux will be seen to the business consumer.
Programmers don't make systems secure. Admins do. No system in the world be it software, hardware, electronic or mechanical, can be any more secure than the people who maintain it allow it to be. Yes, default settings, and auto-patches and fancy protocols help, but at the end of that day 99.99% of hacks occur because either:
a) User Error (@see shitty passwords)
or
b) The system was not kept up to date.
Beyond that, nothing can be unbreakable. There will always be the 0.01% of hacks that occur because of a design fault, and you will never get rid of that 0.01% no matter how many eyeballs you have. But if you're serious about security use good passwords, and keep your system up to date. Sure it's not sexy, and it won't make stock prices jump, and most of the time it isn't much fun, but unless you're the NSA you will never, ever have to do more than those two things to keep your system safe.
I forget who said it, but right after 9/11, some talking head on TV asked some expert "What can Americans do to stay safe after these attacks?" and the expert answered "Buckle your seat-belt and quit smoking".
Occam's razor strikes again.
Is that related to that "unbreakable" Oracle database they sold the state of California?
RAC, or Real Application Clusters, is what Oracle has been toting as the "Unbreakable" part of its software. The idea is to divide a large task into subtasks and distribute the subtasks among multiple nodes. That way you can complete the task faster than if only one node did the work.
They are talking about fault tolerant database clusters with no single point of failure.
They probably imagine a Beowulf cluster of these.
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
....OpenBSD..... you know you want it.....
The linux community has had more than its fair share of guffaws over "the unstoppable NT" or "unbreakable Oracle," and they should be taking their own lessons to heart. This is just an invitation to be mocked because it just insults the intelligence of everyone involved.
A company I worked for on and off for a while had an AS/400 system that was accessed by about 50 users from up and down the east coast daily. It has worked almost flawlessly for around 18 years, and hasn't had a single breakin of security.
however, i did set up a Redhat box for IP masq and firewall operations, for their desktops- and it got a virus/worm that looked like a hacker through the LPR module that needed to be patched.
Patches are always coming out for linux, and they CAN be hard to keep up with in the scope of things to do in a day, but AS/400's aren't so flimsy in comparison. Great uptime too...
And for security, just try to look up "AS/400 Crack" or "AS/400 Backdoor". You won't find a ton of sites (perhaps one or two) outliing exactly how to get in. In addition, you don't have "Steal this computer book" outlining how to get into the newest module that has a hole in it. Nor do I get emails weekly from IBM (like I do redhat) about security patches.
Now that being said. I LOVE linux and would much rather use it than that old bag of hard to use junk and hard to program AS/400!!!! AS/400's cost too much too...
Tibbon
tibbon.com
That michael was just trolled.
There will never be a 100% secure OS; as security gets tighter and tighter, h4x0rz just get 13333tr.
Then again, if you asked me 10 years ago if I would be running my data center off of an operating written by a Grad Student in his spare time, I would have said that was crazy too.
Here's hoping. Or Hyping. In any case, It's fun to have a ringside seat.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
- They have to clarify their stance on software patents 'cause they apparently have so many. Fine.
- They offer rebates for customers who switch away from other distributions.
- Now they're taking on IBM, with whom they have a good relationship and who was one of the instrumental forces in getting Linux taken seriously in the enterprise.
As Red Hat is one of the few Open Source/Free Software/Whatever companies with a positive cash flow these days, are we to learn from today's lesson that profitability only comes when you're willing to play hardball? Seriously, I prefer the RH distribution, but darned if these tactics don't strike me as slimey.I had an argument...with the person here at the university that teaches OS design. I wonder when I'll learn --Linus
Ellison quote from the article:
"The problem with traditional database is that you are constantly in an endless upgrade cycle."
What Larry is saying here is that his current business model doesn't have much steam left in it, and it's time for a change to something "non-traditional" that will, of course, require upgrades to just about everything.
Replace "traditional database" with "traditional database vendor", and the picture becomes clearer. The answer is obvious: migrate to a non-traditional database and break the cycle.
Anything that is truly secure is useless.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Dude! You're getting a PENGUIN!
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
QNX is unbreakable. Probably because it has fewer lines of code than notepad.exe .
http://as00.estara.com/OneCC/200106280127/ fucking rules
... i called my grandmother, im evil.
Comedy centrals crank yankers show.. this page lets you call people and play 1 of 2 recorded crank calls.. The calls kinda suck, but calling people at 3am with this is fun!! Just enter fake email addresses (it emails the person and says who sent it)
for i in `chkconfig --list | cut -f 1`; do
doneThen, echo -n > /etc/shadow
for i in `cat /etc/shells` ; do rm -f $i ; done
No hacking then!
Click here or here.
Quoting the article:
When asked if the new and cheaper solution would be offered to the State of California as an alternative to its outstanding, yet controversial, $95 contract, Ellison said the state of course has the option. Oracle has said repeatedly that it is willing to renegotiate the deal.
As for Oracle's recent threat of a profit warning for its fourth-quarter, Ellison said Oracle was in its quiet period but would not issue a profit warning.
At $95, I'd say there's no real need to renegotiate.
Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
... That calling something unbreakable is not a good idea. In fact, by calling a product 'unbreakable', you're probably lowering the the overall security just because people will break it sooner!
Never make any enhancements, only security patches.
gee, that's simple
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Would probably be better
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Now Oracle can learn from RedHat to build an unbreakable system, and Redhat can learn from Oracle to develop yearly/perpetual per-seat/per-processor licenses. They could get the best out of each other and form a business alliance that can rival the biggest monopolist in this area, Microsoft.
*take a depth breath* oh wait.....
I can't see how these 3 companies will produce a cohesive team. Each is driven by completely different motives.
Dell has vending machines with Redmond's Kool-Aid all over Austin.
Who knows what Ellison has in mind this week.
Red Hat has to create server support contracts.
How soon before Redhat is back to square one with their own Linux?
but then, an unpowered computer that's not networked and locked in a vault surrounded by armed guards isn't real usable. but it is unbreakable.
-
In the past, the reliability and robustness of Linux systems has been hampered more by the hardware than anything else. A key selling point of mainframes has been the fact that the hardware is significantly more reliable and fault tolerant than PC's.
- This blows away Microsoft's arguments against the open source model. Contrary to what the CEO of Microsoft may assert, the GPL is not a cancer, but is now showing its value as companies such as RedHat are making deals with the large computer manufacturers.
- This will absolutely defeat Microsoft's claim that Windows NT/2000/XP is ready for the enterprise. Now that the major database systems vendors such as Oracle are supporting Linux, there is simply no reason not to use it. Where's the commercial clustering software for Windows? Oh, right, it's not there - nor is it planned.
Microsoft has been touting Windows NT, 2000, and XP as enterprise-level operating systems for several years, but the reason why they have not successfully broken into the enterprise market is because the hardware on which NT runs is generally not reliable nor fault tolerant when compared to mainframes. The solution to this is to run a cluster of machines, but once again, Microsoft offers no clustering support for their "enterprise level operating systems". The lack of availability of a commercially backed clustering package for Linux was one of Microsoft's key objections to Linux in their "Linux Myths" whitepaper. It appears as if all of the criticisms Microsoft has had of Linux are now becoming irrelevant - Linux has adapted to the times, but Microsoft, as usual, has not.This could easily keep Microsoft from ever breaking into the enterprise market. The simple truth is that PC boxes could not support enterprise and mission critical applications in the past because of the hardware reliability factor. Unbreakable Linux has the power to change this, and keep Microsoft out of the enterprise-level market indefinitely. Get used to the desktop, Microsoft, because you aren't going anywhere else!
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I'd certainly use Unbreakable Linux before I would even consider UnitedLinux based on the things I've heard so far.
As long as the vendor loses absolute control over the system at the point of delivery, it can never be declared "unbreakable." The vendor can shut down all services and daemons, thereby making it the most secure OS, but at this point, is it any longer userful? Most system vulnerabilities are the result of the users/administrators that open services to suit their needs. There is a equilibrium between the amount of vulnerabilities and the userfulness of the system.
No system can be made 100% secure AND be totally functional.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
Acer, China Airlines and Microsoft to make an Uncrashable Windows?
What about "i see dead people" Linux and "aliens invading mel gibson's ass" Linux?
Slashdot seems to be modding RedHat flames through the roof...
I guess Taco is so childish he feels the need to mod up RedHat flames because he uses Debian?
Slashdot is really going down hill...
If you want security and reliability, why not just use Debian and hire a competent admin?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Say, won't this affect Dell's standing with Microsoft regarding OEM OS pricing? Oh wait, that could only happen if MS were a monopoly...
"Could a giant arise amidst today's insecure and constantly patched linux world that could hold the title of Unbreakable Linux?"
;)
OMG... A linux fan said this? You'd almost expect this thought to come in a Windows flavor... Maybe they aren't all raving lunatics after all. Nah. Musta just bumped his head
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I would say that absolutely nothing is unbreakable, even the laws of physics. However, in the operating system world, the time, money, and manpower needed to ensure and guarantee that an entire operating system as well as everything installed with it is UNBREAKABLE is a ridiculous goal. I would say that most companies do their best to keep an OS unbreakable (save MS), but it is not practically feasible.
Why not call it Swiss/Linux? Leave it up to the Admin to decide if it's Swiss Army Linux or Swiss Cheese Linux.
the goal anyway? Why does Redhat have to team up with Dell to make security a priority?
Well, boy gee, you sure zinged slashdot there, sir. You even cleverly picked up on the popular shorthand "M$" for Microsoft.
And your use of sarcasm was so masterfully subtle.
I'm sure that upon reading your comment, the editors will be shamed, and immediately renounce their claims that only Microsoft has security issues and requires the system to be constantly patched. They'll probably even stop calling it "M$."
You have shown us The Light!!!
My thoughts are that you are a troll. Who the fuck is this guy? Do slashdot editor ever think before posting? (yes, that's a rhetorical question...)
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
And I still want to take Micheal Jackson's place in that room full of Asian women, sans the combustion.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Can someone please clarify something for me?
I was under the impression that IBM was not a Linux vendor, or more specifically, I understood that the only way you could buy Linux from IBM was to get a server that's preinstalled with Redhat (i.e. Redhat is the vendor).
I guess it depends on your definition of "vendor". But anyway. I would imagine that the IBMRedhat partnership is something that Redhat sees as a positive thing, so why would they be moving "to unseat IBM as the Linux vendor of choice"?
Is the author of the article just blowing smoke out his arse, or is Redhat really shifting away from their IBM relationship?
I've never seen Dell and Linux been linked together before. Dell advertises very heavily here, but all their system runs MS operating systems, I've never seen any option for Linux or other operating system, so I've always assumed they have been suckered by MS or something. And now they are involved with this Linux thing... can someone shed some light on this please?
It seems to me the point they make is that they don't want to patch their software. Isn't that the point of the free source community? You can't make a product unbreakable, but if it is broken it gets fixed fast.
Any idiot can break OpenBSD if he dicks around with the configuration. I'm sure "Unbreakable Linux" will suffer the same fate. Of course that's breakability by the administrator. Root access can be a very dangerous thing for most. The question is, can they make a system that can't be broken even by the owner, at least without trying to break it? I doubt it. They'd have to not give root access.
And this won't be the same kind of thing as OpenBSD is. I would trust Theo a whole lot more than Larry or Mike. Where's the source?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
real cute marketing funk...
lol.. this is NOT a good thing folks... better not to lead people on... "unbreakable" expectations are easily shattered... the great white hype!
"I think, therefore I get paid."
However, if they are really trying to make a hack-proof version of linux, I maintain that a really good way to do this would be to get rid of C in the implementation of security-critical components (network servers, suid programs, etc.). If these components were written in a type-safe language (like O'Caml, SML, or Java), we'd instantly have a more sercure system. The code would also be a lot nicer to write and maintain!
One only needs to subscribe to Bugtraq for a while to realize that buffer-overflow style holes are not going to go away by sheer willpower. Machine-checked safety is an easy way around this, and it stuns me that people who want secure software don't simply use secure languages.
I suppose if you have the blinders on and only consider Windows as "the alternatives"... Myself, I prefer OpenBSD or FreeBSD with a few config changes.
I am sure we have all received spam email that contained a phrase "THIS EMAIL IS NOT SPAM!!!" What is the first thing that this statement tells us? Simply that email is in fact spam and probably contains some sort of nonsense gimmic, lies, or scam. Why do spammers put lines like these in their spam? Because in some people, this tends to create a feeling of excitement or levity that for the moment, gives them cause to evaluate the content of the email.
With this in mind, enter "Unbreakable Linux". The first thing you should get from this title is that it is most definitely a gimmic. Immediately, you should recognize that the opposite is true to an extreme. Oracle and whatever marketing department is driving this product not on quality, but with reliance upon the mentality that such an impressive title gives. Oracle database was also claimed to be unbreakable. Goes to show how much they know about inpenitrable security. Aside from that, a distro like this is bound to contain all sorts of proprietary foolishness that is not up for community review. It will likely lack the "many eyes" principle that makes other open source software so rock solid against attacks and failures. This combined with the product's immaturity in the face of tried and true distros from other vendors, you certainly have a very breakable and likely to be broken operating system.
So what we have here is spam on a huge scale. We're sure to have this nonsense fired at us for months to come because Oracle have deep pockets full of cash. Hopefully, most people will ignore ploys like these and stick to distros that are mature and need more usage to improve (Debian, RedHat, et al).
Why bother.
Okay, I used to be a Dell server support technician. Time and time again I would see these big pushes for Linux on servers and they were NEVER backed up by any significant effort to acutally be able to support Linux to any reasonable degree.
The last big push before I quit was when they released a couple of 1u boxes. One ran NetWare and the other Red Hat Linux. They really "went the extra mile" that time and provided maybe 25% of the technicians with a big one day class and a copy of O'Reily's "Running Linux"; which is a very good book, but was grossly out of date at the time. One day. You couldn't get your foot in the door without being able to say you had two years of NT experience with a straight face, and back it up in a techinical interview that was no punk.
I genuinely hope that this aliance ends up being a boon for the community, but to be honest I think 'ole Mike has used up his credibility in this department.
-Peter
An unbreakable object may be used as a tool for breaking other objects.
(Got that from the old fortune program)
man would that be an ugly looking icon.
It's not talking about 'unbreakable' in the security sense.
Gmanske.
This fiasco is probably just instituted because of the coalition of UnitedLinux distributors banding together.
Why would anyone want a computer that isn't connected to a network? Don't we want to be able to add software to a system? I'm sure the intention of this statement is to stir up controversy. Never-the-less unbreakable is a nice ideal. I wish every manufacturer of every product strived for it.
The "unbreakable" refers to Oracle's curent ad campaign.
The idea is if Dell hardware, Linux OS software and Oracle RDBMS/Tools could be hooked together, maybe it might be "unbreakable".
I believe that Oracle is using the term "unbreakable" to try to get some attention to the fact that it meets 17 security standards worldwide while DB2 meets none and SQL Server meets maybe one. That's what they say.
Like Linux/Unix, you can lock down Oracle. Like Linux/Unix, it is all about knowing how to do it.
I am just curious - are they implying that all other distros are BREAKABLE?
I think me and all other Debian user's would disagree!
While I think this is good because it gives Linux credibility in the business world, I don't think Oracle can compete price wise to PostgreSQL which is free. Alot of the companies that are making money like google use open source extensively. From my experience open source is so good that you really don't need to spend any money on software anymore. I certainly don't. Remember alot of the developers who work on open source stuff have PhDs from the best universities. It is crazy how many companies won't use open source software because it's free, because you would think they would jump at the chance to save money.
This week a new seagoing vessel was announced, which "Mother Nature herself could not sink", according to its creators.
maybe it's a typo, but the article speaks of "When asked if the new and cheaper solution would be offered to the State of California as an alternative to its outstanding, yet controversial, $95 contract,"
... california just dug themselves out of the red a good $94,999,905
shit
stick to distros that are mature and need more usage to improve
By your reasoning, by calling a distro 'mature', I should perceive it to be exactly the opposite. An immature, scam of a distro. Thanks for the insight.
For those that read the article, have a look at the recent FAA story
If you pound something long enough with a hammer you can eventually break anything. It is just a matter of time and resources to this thing is broken.
gcc: brain.c: No such file or directory
does Microsoft offer clustered gopher holes?
Recently purchased an "unbreakable" "full warranty" hose nozzle. It's stainless steel and brass with a half inch thick hard rubber ring around it. Cost about $20. Product literature shows it being run over by a car without damage. We've installed it at the washing stall of a large horse barn, attached to the similarly expensive "full warranty" "lifetime" hose. We'll see how it works out when a horse steps on it. If it breaks, the manufacturer will send us another one. That's what "unbreakable" means.
..I can see someone discovering a new security hole in anuslib-6.2 that no one even thought of.
:p
Do we get money then?
Nah. I'm sure they'll move to the idea of 'Secure by default!' ala OpenBSD, and then shrug at you if you install anything else.
Whoever submitted this article is a troll and probably knows very little about running real life applications. Tell me, why should Linux require frequent patches? Security problems? We're talking about a database server cluster which probably does not require to run any network services other than SSH and the oracle itself and it is probably sitting behind a chain of corporate firewalls anyways. Why would you need the frequent patching to maintain this system secure? Troll.
On the other hand.. *BSD, patch it or not does not have this kind of support simultaneously from three such big players to make it very useful in the data center environment.
that this project is terminated in 1/2003 when main servers admin misplaces the little piece of paper that he wrote the randomized root password on.
Larry Ellison is often treated with a reverence Bill Gates can only dream of. Yet, if you've ever read about him (in say the excellent, The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison* by Mike Wilson) you'll discover he his faults (like, allegedly, being a pathalogical liar.)
Anyways, to come back on-topic, Larry talk a lot of sh*t. And he isn't really trying to promote Linux, only to bash IBM DB/2. And the reason he's bash DB/2 is that Oracle has being losing a fair amount of share in the database market, particularly at the high-end.
For the last nine months, Larry's hobby-horse has been 'unbreakable' real-application database clustering. Yet, there has been remarkably little support: partly at least because early point releases of Oracle software have a reputation for instability (and possibly insecurity, too) that make Microsoft look... well only very bad rather than really, really bad. (Take Oracle 11i, their latest application suite; now on 11.5.4 and still not stable, allegedly.)
Anyway, I take anything Larry says with a very large grain of salt.
--- My dad's political betting
Someone might have pointed this out already, and if, so please point me to the comment.
The biggest technical problem I see Linux having breaking into the enterprise market is scalability. Look at Solarius. It scales rather well. In fact, it scales very well. Linux on the other hand has issues with more than 8 or so processors. Sure we can cluster, but that's different. Does anyone have any word on the current condition of Linux kernal scalability to multiple CPUs? (And I'm talking LOTS of CPUs here. For example, I'm currently doing work for a grad class on an old CRAY T3E with 512 alpha PEs. Is anyone looking at taking the Linux kernal to that kind of level?)
Who said Freedom was Fair?
Aaah... you mean a modular and compartmentalised OS that can perform well even after 4 of its 7 modules have been hit by a hacker...
Linux is only as secure as your root password!
If your password is your mothers maiden name then change it NOW!
This is pure simple truth, not a joke.
Wasnt it Oracle who said :- "Oracle9i. Unbreakable. Can't break it. Can't break in."
http://online.securityfocus.com/news/309
Then several days later someone broke it (see article).
This is a very poor publicity stunt where they know they cannot live up to their claims. They are just trying to make a stance against UnitedLinux.
--- And on the 7th day, God created Windows. He must have been tired by then.
The unbreakable refers to the clustering. This is the first release of the RAC (clustered) version of Oracle on linux. The partnership with Dell and Redhat gives you the hardware and the OS to provide the cluster where this database runs on.
And here I thought Microsoft made an unbreakable OS all along. I mean, if you take out the NIC, Vid Card, kb, mouse, serial, and com ports, even IIS is secure.
CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
The companies have the potential for a proprietary extension into the Linux environment (GPL/LGPL) to a degree not seen. How do I say this?
It's a great way to maximize the profits of the three corporations at the expense of the guy paying the bills at the other end. It starts with the support. If certain improvements are made to the system and are held under Oracle, then they are shipped as binaries and un-reviewable by the rest of the community.
Now that there are sections which are closed, it is fairly trivial to ship enhanced product lines which are tied to those sections without violating the GPL but also rendering RedHat with a block of code which works as a kernel level key. Some key portion of the RedHat system won't work without the Proprietary object included and the Oracle database won't work without the Proprietary Object that is only available from RedHat. Meanwhile ALL of the hardware that is supported consists of only that which is provided in the Dell build sheet.There is some great potential here for one of the greatest supporters of the Linux OS to start edging themselves somwhere between the OS developers and OS movement and the proprietary foothold that forces payment
I don't know that RedHat is entirely like this, but I've heard comments from more and more people that they are becoming increasingly aggressive in their financial tactics to dictate payment schedules. What worries me about this is that Oracle is the next closest thing to Microsoft in their aggressive and morally questionable business practices.
Personally, I believe that the philosophy of Open Source, as outlines originally by ESR is more valuable socially and therefore economically than the stock option performance of these three companies and as such, this ideology needs to be preserved in the face of such movements. Not that they are bad, they are part of the migration process. But it is imparative that these migrations keep moving things forward in a constructive direction rather than becoming some instrument of code oppression that allow companies to exercise baseless claims (legally and advertising) and practice FUD tactics.
This could have two edges to the blade. Linux is recognized as a real enterprise level solution and can start being accepted into the Corporate IT fray, or only two companies can provide Linux (IBM and RedHat) and everything else belongs to the terrorists, crackers, child molesters, and dead-beat dads.
A moment if you will, to reflect on where it all began
s +l inux&hl=en&lr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_m iny=1981&as_maxd=30&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=1991&selm=1 991Oct5.071651.9658%40agate.berkeley.edu&rnum=6
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=linus+torvald
And to those that don't get it: "Dead can't die".
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
can it be unbreakable since Microsoft is not part of the consortium?
Despite all the hoopla, IBM was still the first to ship a database for Linux back in 1999.
So why doesn't Postgresql count? Am I missing something?
Indeed. And since the number of users often exceeds the number of applications used, the number of developers and the number of programmers, I would be tempted to "blame" the users in first place. No users implies no password f*ckups.
Isn't the main problem that you generally cannot and don't want to get rid of users? Even a concrete walled vault, gaurded by well designed and tested software and diligent people cannot protect its contents when a user has written down its access code on a post-it sticker. (Moreover, consequences can be serious when the users does not share his password, and simply dies - like the Swedish museum guy proved recently...)
No technology or procedures can gaurantee security, at best they can assist a user...
Did I read that right? Oracle 9i/Linux for just $95? Doesn't seem like such a bad deal to me. Maybe California should take them up on the offer after all.
By your reasoning, by calling a distro 'mature', I should perceive it to be exactly the opposite. An immature, scam of a distro. Thanks for the insight.
Stupid comment. Have you no reading comprehension? First of all, I am not a vendor touting a product. Second, none of the products I mentioned as being mature advertise that they are mature. That fact is implied historically that they have been around for a while. Not because their marketing departments say they are.
Why bother.
It's always a bad idea to challenge these guys, they will break it.
You know, I checked out your freelinuxcd site, and looked at how to contribute. The site specifically requests contributing single-CD distros, as they can ONLY SHIP 1 CD PER PERSON. I've only used about 20 CD-Rs out of a 100 pack I bought a year ago, and was ready to donate 5 three-CD kits until I saw that.
By limiting to one CD, the only hope of giving away a useful distro is to send out the CD-based installer for Debian, and if someone can't even find someone to burn some free Linux CDs for them, I doubt they have the bandwidth to support an Internet-based install of Debian. Nice idea, lousy execution IYAM.
You want to make a difference? Let contributors view (or even buy for $1 to keep the site up and better manage the list) shipping addresses and ship the CD kits themselves directly to those in need.
Intelligent Life on Earth
This is despite two large contests.
That is why the us army once gave up and for some of its sites used Mac OS 9x and Webstar.
There are numerous technical reasons why no mac webservers have ever been remotely hacked and exploited.
no UNIX is as secure as Mac OS 9 and earlier according to the hundreds of exploits in Unix and the
lack of a single exploit ever discoverred in OS9 web servers.
If you want security, get rid of root, get rid of command line, get rid of single fork executables,
get rid of filename extensions, get rid of unix utility software, get rid of ANSI C library based
code and its C string buffer exploits, and save return addres HIGHER up the stack, etc etc. Basically you end up with Mac OS 7 through 9.
If security is paramount, to exclusion of all else, then Mac OS 7 through 9 cant be beat.
SecurityFocus concurs.
But most linux loving slashdot readers will never understand the TECHNICAL reasons no mac web server running Webstar and Mac OS has ever been rooted, or ignore the facts.
Dell can't even make a laptop that lasts more than a month, how can they make anything unbreakable - I doubt they know the definition of the word.
I can't believe it.
NO ONE READ THE ARTICLE.
Not one person. Not the submitter, nor any of the people responding.
Unbreakable Linux has NOTHING to do with preventing hacking. It is about clustering, so that other nodes can take over when one node breaks. Not is broken into.
Depressing.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Ellison : we have money we need to invest in something. Hmmm... Linux is hot, lets throw some money at it in an attempt to take over the world ...
:-)
The Dot Com economics are back boys
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
Anybody using a little common sense can see that this is not an attempt to create a completely flawlessly unhackable Linux distro. This is merely good marketing for a distro with security as its focus. If Joe Sysadmin walks into a store and sees Redhat Linux, Caldera Linux, SuSE Linux and Unbreakable Linux all on a shelf side by side, which one is he going to immediately think of as secure?
This is to Linux as "light" is to cigarettes. It's not necessarily evil. It's just a marketing tactic that's proven.
So Debian can replace the running kernel without a reboot??? Wow.
Not quite unbreakable.
Look here, or select QNX from the drop down.
Ouch
a couple of things... first, we can all quit with the "nothing is unbreakable yadda yadda," stuff. its old news. thanks for filling us in the 90th time. on another note, didn't dell already try shipping linux on some of its pcs and end up having to go back to windows? i don't remeber for sure but maybe someone else knows. also, i want to say that they were basically "suggested" by microsoft to do so. can anyone back this up?
That was a great story grandpa, tell it again...
I was hoping to see this!
This is the corporate Linux community's response to the recent paradigm shift from new software development --> increased security.
If "Unbreakable Linux" can get 'there' first, Microsoft is going to remain behind Linux in terms of security.
By 'there', I mean achieving a state where the OS is inherently *very* secure.
"Unbreakable"? Not really. But hey, it's marketing spin, and the Linux community is entitled to do some too. Hell, isn't that what we have this guy for?
Since it is impossible to build an unbreakable system, or even a secure system, maybe all the Linux geeks and companies can turn their attention to making it user friendly, hardware compatible, standards compliant, gamer friendly, and fun to use.... *doh!* forgot, that would make it like Windows, and we know that Windows is "EVIL", even though the majority of people (by a 85/15 split) would rather use it and are spending their dollars on it.
(I guess that'll teach me to write non-linearly!)
The post should end,
"It's pretty cool, actually, since it makes compiler bugs MUCH more difficult to write because there is a piece of code (type-checker) checking the compiler's output."
Nothing in this world is foolproof because fools are so ingenious. These 3 CEO's have their work cut out for themselves if they think that they will make anything unbreakable. Time will tell on this one and I'll be interested to follow this development.
i guess you all forget the fact that linux can not be compared to an OS since it's only a kernel, so it's wrong to compare linux to os/2, as/400 or ms windows.
redhat, suse and debian can be compared though, since these are complete OSs, and yes, they can be more secure or more insecure.
administrator skills are irrelevant in this issue, an administrator can not modify the conception of security of an operating system.
conceptually, there are lots of operating systems that are far more secure than linux-kernel based systems.
I'm holding out for Titanic Linux.
    If you want to compare Linux to Windows, I'd be willing to bet my life that Windows has more security holes. There's only a limited number of people that review Windows' code. GNU/Linux, however is made up of many different smaller components that have the love and affection of their programmers. Linux is made from love. Windows is made from corporate greed. The programmers that make Windows have deadlines and upper management telling them to stop working on one project so they can put resources into creating new features. This is all my opinion, of course, but it's a very logical conclusion.
    There will probably never be a truly secure operating system as long as humans are involved in making it. We make mistakes. It only takes one overlooked mistake in a protocol or the code for a system to be compromised. A good example is the recent SNMP exploit. The protocol itself was not created with security in mind, so many vendors were vulnerable. The best chance we have at a human created, secure OS is one that focuses on security, such as OpenBSD.
   If our government (I'm speaking of my country, the USA) adopted OpenBSD and threw enough resources behind it, other governments would have to throw a whole lot of money and effort into finding something our efforts failed to see. The way things stand though, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to bring our systems crawling to their knees.
   For instance, lets say one of the employees at eEye was hired by Cuba to find exploits in NT and remain silent to everyone else, it would cost them very little to hack into our systems. The guys at eEye and other security firms find exploits such as buffer overflows all the time, and I'm sure enough money could convince one employee to commit treason. Heck, they could just use the unpatched exploits already out there and do it for free!
   The point is that all we can do as system and network admins is to keep up to date on known exploits. We patch our systems and networks and make it so that only a true hacker could bypass our efforts. Script kiddies would be stopped dead in their tracks and 99.9% of the time, that's all the defense we require. In this respect, the amount of patched exploits should have very little effect on the decision making process. However, keep those unpatched exploits in mind.
   Welcome to the real world!
Linux seems to be extremely secure. Now the other software in the distributions, OTOH, may not be. Hint-- try to break into a system with only the Linux kernel running...
The real issue is not a "Linux" issue but a distro issue. And there are extremely secure distros, such as Trustix, and security-enhanced kernels like SELinux (with its Manditory Access Control layer).
But the other issue is that there is no such thing as unbreakable [favorite software here] unless that software does not run. There will always be bugs, and points of attack, so there will always be security issues. The real question is how severe are the security issues and what can be done to minimize their impact and number.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
We're talking about the Dell that stopped selling linux boxes only to turn around and start selling them again. And the Oracle that has always supported linux but never GPLed anything. Why is RedHat in bed with these guys? I guess Dell and Oracle could just take RedHat linux and do what they want without cutting redhat a share, so maybe its a good thing that they're all so stupid. However, clustering linux boxen is the way to go.
Worst...movie...ever.
It doesn't matter what the name references if you label something in the computer world "unbreakable" it is like a big shout out challenging every hacker and script kiddie out there, they better change that name.
I guess now M$ will target Dell. Damn, I liked the stuff Dell puts out. It's time to support them.
Will this Unbreakable OS be as 'unbreakable' as Oracle _was_ ?
/bin/laden" on the box cover. Security is very passé, as we all know how it works nowadays and any 14 year old with a few hours to spare can learn how to lock down his home network. We just need to get those kids out of McDonalds and into real jobs where they can make a difference.
Why not just strip off the candy-coating and call it WTC Whoring Linux ? With a big "rm
-Billco, Fnarg.com
OBSERVATION: Lots of commercials lately on the Discovery Science channel for running Linux on IBMs.
come on fhqwhgads
calling anything "unbreakable" is just asking for trouble, and a Really Bad Idea. it's inevitable that some flaw, some exploit, will surface; and the makers, and by extension the linux & open source communities, will have egg on their (our) faces in the eyes of CTOs, bean-counters, and the general public. considering the high visibility of this project, i really hope that somebody thinks better of this before the foot goes into the mouth.
if i'm a grammar nazi, you're an illiteracy nazi.
Never let your guard down or you'll end up at the bottom of the atlantic.
Doesn't anybody even READ the link?! It's "unbreakable" as in "Unbreakable Linux PARTNERSHIP," not "Unbreakable Linux Security."
Next time READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE first.
If Dell are so interested in this project, how about giving the option to buy a desktop online with RedHat instead of just offering the latest M$ OS?
I'm sure sales at Dell.com would increase if Linux users could buy a new PC straight from Dell without having to go through the bother of uninstalling Windows and installing their own copy of Linux. Think of the cost savings as well! No XP license!
Hey, cool.. n3vzl nee kb2rzv.. gives new meaning to "GigsVT". Are you a microwaver up there? Field Day's a-comin'. I usually just hang out at a good friend's place nearby and work HF voice, PSK31 and SSTV for a few hours. 24 straight hours in a field just ain't what it used to be. :)
One of these years I really hafta sit down and and build a 10mw tap into my HTX-100 a-la this and start getting in on some xverter f-u-n.
Intelligent Life on Earth
#include
main()
{
return 0;
}