Slashdot Mirror
End Of Development For Grsecurity Announced?
vrtk writes "I received this minutes ago, from the grsecurity mailing list, also displayed on the official site for the open-source security project: 'Beginning today, May 31, 2004, development of grsecurity will cease. On
June 7, the website, forums, mailing list, and CVS will be shut down. Due to a sponsor unexpectedly dropping sponsorship of grsecurity while
continually promising payment, I began the summer in debt and had to borrow money from family to pay for food. If none of the companies that
depend on grsecurity, some of them being very large, are able to sponsor the project, grsecurity will cease to exist. I am not looking for paypal
donations at this point, unless those that donate do so with the recognition that despite their donation, grsecurity may still never be
returning.'"
Sound a lot like material breach of contract with them not coming through with the money. Or else the deliberatly sabatoged it in order to own that dev space.
Chalk up another boot to the nuts for the little guy. Good luck to them in the future :(
I also submitted this story (rejected) and provided various informational links on this issue:
i nuxCaseStudy.pdf
l
t y.xml
For a comparison between Grsecurity and SELinux:
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~jcg8f/GrsecuritySEL
They also document and explain many of the issues facing the LSM project as well:
http://www.grsecurity.org/lsm.php
It will be interesting to see how the Gentoo Hardened Project will respond to this as well as they have done a great deal of work with grsecurity and provided some exceptional Grsecurity documentation (for the 1.9.x series).
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/index.xm
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/grsecuri
It will be sad to see this project fade away, especially for those needing an expressive security RBAC/MAC/PAX system. Grsecurity, combined with PAX, provided a well rounded security system that was sensible, somewhat easy to learn, and easier to administrate thanks to the powerful gradm Learning capability.
the sort of bastards that make $2500/hour being driven to country clubs to shake hands and joke about 'damned hippies'.
"What, we don't need to pay him?"
"Heh, yeah. Damn fool fell for that Open Source crap. He gets what he deserves."
"Well, Damn Dirty Hippies, etc. Oh, and pass the caviar."
Brad Spender is truly an Internet hero, a pioneer who made us all safer. He went about his work selflessly, with precision and excellence.
If ever there was a time to band together to save one of our own this is it. Brad has gone into debt while helping to make multi-billion dollar corporations safer. Perhaps at the end of the day they will come through for Brad, perhaps they will not. There must be some way that we can all help him regardless of what his corporate sponsors do.
how can it cease to exist? isnt open source software forever? (well in some form or another) it may not be regularly updated (or updated at all by the looks of the article) but could still prove useful in the future...
Since the developers went and got all selfish about things like 'eating' and 'clothes'?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
I have never heard of this project till today, but I would not be suprised if this is an all too often occurence in the OSS world.
Hopefully he finds a new sponser so that he can carry on. It really sucks when you put a lot of time and effort into something, then to have someone just pull the plug on you (completly out of your control) and to be then left with nothing.
Good luck.
Support yourself by selling grsecurity tshirts and coffee mugs.
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
I think someone should disclose the name of the sponsor that pulled out, not to flame them (well, maybe...) but so that others that might be depending on them get to re-evaluate the economics of their projects. Anyone know who it was?
I wonder if the Gentoo Hardened project will continue grsecurity development, they've done a bit of work with it anyways. Gentoo could certainly supply grsecurity with the needed webspace/cvs hosting etc...
I wonder if that option was looked at before spender decided to give up. Does anyone have ideas on why this couldn't be done? Seems fairly simple to me..
I touch computers in naughty places
Apparently you have not learned all the steps of OSS development.
You have successfully completed two stages:
1. Develop free software.
2. Run out of money.
And you quit at this point forgetting about the third step.
3. Launch a massive copyright-infringement patent-violation lawsuit against IBM and pay lawyers with stock.
For those who don't know, grsecurity is a security oriented patch for the Linux kernel. It provides mandatory access controls, strengthens the chroot system call, adds /proc and filesystem protections, allows for kernel level auditing of almost everything, and includes the PaX patch to provide non-executable memory pages and address space layout randomization.
The MAC part, called RBAC for Role Based Access Controls, is very well done and the best I've seen. Configuration is very easy through a flat file interface. The system enforces that you have certain intelligent configurations set so you can't make simple mistakes destroying your security. It has a learning mode which will automatically give a least access ruleset for the whole system. Amazingly it actually works quite well. Also the learning mode can be turned on for individual roles or subjects making it easy to add a new program to a system with RBAC already running.
In my opinion grsecurity was the best hope for real security on linux for most people as it provides a comprehensive solution, is easy to set up, and it well engineered.
Sorry to say this, but I feel that sponsorship is ultimately not a good way to run an OSS project.
:-)
If you rely on sponsorships, you have to expect this kind of thing to happen. It does. All the time.
If there are businesses which are using your software, then there should be a market for you in consulting. Consulting is a proven business model for OSS development. (Not that it is much more of a guarantee, but at least you have a contract.)
Not to mention that many big businesses view consulting and sponsorship as two very, very different things. It has to do with bookmaking. Money paid as consulting makes it more evident that you are providing a service than money marked down as 'sponsorship'.
Now, if your project is not commercially interesting, and you still want to get paid for doing it, perhaps you should be looking for a research position instead, if it's innovative enough.
And if it's not innovative nor commercially interesting.. Well then it's a hobby, goddamnit!
Not only does he run out of money, he gets a slashdotting too. :(
Sorry, but that's not how OSS development gets funded; you can't just put up some software on a web site and wait for donations.
Grsecurity looks like something you might be able to fund as part of a security consulting business. Or, if dealing with people is not your thing, you might be able to make a living writing books about security and how to use grsecurity. Or you might be able to do it on the side while working for a large company.
If grsecurity is as useful as you think, if there was a lively community around it, and if the code is usable, there is a good chance someone else will pick it up and actually build a successful business around it. If nobody continues development of grsecurity at this point, then it wasn't really a good, live open source project anyway--it was just some useful code released under the GPL.
Please don't complain about it: while your desire to create open source software is admirable, it is still your problem if you fail because you picked a naive business model.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
From the link given in the story:
And:
How fucking hard was that? And this guy gets a +5 insightful. [shakes head in disbelief]
SteveM
Here, I'll fix it. Your post with clickable links:
You might want to use HTML next time. Or you might not.Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
I don't want to sound too much like a troll, but is it possible that this is a method to induce payment by the unmentioned sponsor? If the sponsorship was so crucial to the development of the project (which, as stated was done by a single individual for the most part) and the sponsor already has made use of the project, a change to another project, or relying on the OSS community to take over would be too costly or disruptive, that it may be in the best interest of the developer to come to this decision. I feel bad for Brad, grsecurity obviously is/was something he put a lot of time and effort into, and if matters have come up that prevent him from continuing, so be it. I don't, however like the fact that "no one else is good enough to produce the quality work he has" or "lack the vision for the poject", it seems to lack sincerity for some reason, and I wonder if his motives lie somewhere else.
What amazes me is that it's automagically assumed that a code-cutter also has business sense to run a successful business.
:[
:(
Remember at the end of the day he's a code-cutter... not a suit... if he was a suit.. he wouldn't be a code-cutter now would he!
I must admit as a code-cutter I'm sick of many businesses idea of 'yeah... lets' get it under the GPL... we can use, abuse and not pay for it'.
Bad Karma to this idea of thinking...
These fat-cats still drive home to a nice warm bed, big meal and watch their TV.
How about flipping some $$'s towards the smuck that did all your hard work and ensure he's still around next year when you have a real question abuot the software.
At the end of the day... nothing is FREE... someone pays... unfortunately with a lot of GPL.. it's normally the developer and his family.
The problem isn't the code itself, which will remain GPLed. But the problem is the code by itself isn't as useful since this is the kind of project that requires constant maintenance. Who's going to host the code? More crucially, who's going to maintain it and ensure it remains compatible with new kernel versions and modules? You? Didn't think so.
The fact anyone could host the project doesn't help unless someone actually does...
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Security focus provided the following good explanation:
"...Grsecurity is a suite of patches (distributed as a single patch file) for the Linux kernel that are an attempt to improve the security of a Linux system. Grsecurity is based on a port of some previous patches for the Linux 2.2 kernel, including Openwall and PaX, which have never been ported to the 2.4 kernel. Grsecurity provides some updates to these patches and has been ported to the Linux 2.4 kernel..." continue reading SecurityFocus's review.
I began the summer in debt and had to borrow money from family to pay for food. If none of the companies that depend on grsecurity, some of them being very large, are able to sponsor the project, grsecurity will cease to exist.
Another fine example of the open source business model.
Economics 101: Paying for something that your competitors get for free puts you at an economic disadvantage. Therefore, almost all companies will take open source software and not pay for it.
If General Motors gave away cars and asked for donations to cover R&D, production, etc., do you think that Hertz, Avis, Dollar, Enterprise, or any of the car rental firms would donate money to GM? Of course not. They would all take free cars for as long as GM was able and willing to give them away, though.
I will never understand why many professional software developers are proponents of open source. Buy a big-rig truck and start delivering goods for free. See how many Teamsters rally round you and cheer you on. You'll be lucky if you just get your knees broken.
Just in case everyone forgot, open source was meant to satisfy a programing itch, not necessarily provide a living. The fact that so many coders are able to use it to maintain a standard of living is an unintended side effect.
Though it would be possible for others to handle maintenance of the project, the quality won't be held to the same standards and will not progress with the same goals I have set for the project.
Without a signed, insured contract what guarantee did the sponsor(s) have that the maintainer(s) was doing a competent job anyway? I guess they had the same guarantee the main dev had in getting paid, i.e. none.
No offense meant to the dev, but come the hell on. This is one of the weirdest cases of sour grapes I've read in the OS department.
The big BIG problem for the FOSS business model for the little guy is some large company running off with the product and either offering it themselves, or in this case not bothering to contribute anything back.
And yes, software costs money to develop. Even if you do it in your spare time, that is time that could be spent on a profit earning venture. For better or worse, we live in a capitalistic society. You go to the supermarket, they will expect you to pay cash for what you buy.
And the FOSS zealots ARE partially responsible for poor young students / software developers spending huge amounts of their valuable time for free. All over slashdot the zealots will flame anyone who dares to suggest that to run a business you have to think past just simply offering FOSS software / services. It is always suggested that FOSS is the way of the future, all large companies are shifting to FOSS etc etc etc. Why do you think IBM loves Linux? Not because they have a love for their fellow human being - they can get it for free! They can undercut the opposition. If they are true believers in FOSS philosophy, wheres the source code for DB2? Yeahh...suuure..they have fully embraced open source havent they?
Yes, FOSS is a noble cause, but please PLEASE stop trying to convince kids that they will make money from their efforts. Consulting makes money for the little guy, developing FOSS doesnt.
Here are some real-world lessons that I learned the hard way:
;)
1. When it comes to business, it's every man for himself... you *really* have to see it that way or some other guy will eat your lunch.
2. Nothing personal, but fuck you. (you being anyone asking for money that isn't compelled by law or contractual obligation). It's simple really, you want people to give *you* their money... not the other way around, got that?
3. Never give anyone a break... that's not how rich men become rich. Do you think that they'd give you a break? Does your landlord give you a break on a month's back rent? How bout the cell phone company... sure, they'll let you skip the early opt-out penality on your 2-year contract
4. Work for yourself... put yourself first 100% of the time. You're in business for you, no one else.
5. It's just business, nothing personal, but fuck you.
With point number 5 constantly in mind, go get 'em tiger. Enough of this cry-baby OSS/Free Software crap. This guy gave grsecurity away for free. No one made him do it. Let's all hope he learned a lesson, I sure as hell did.
Kudos to RMS and Torvalds for giving away top-notch software *and* for not expecting anything in return other than recognition... that's all I've ever given them, and all I ever will.
Anarchism for dummies
1. Co-operate.
Even simpler.
"The only clear view is from atop the mountain of our dead selves." - Peter Carroll
I read the 'comparative to LSM/SEL' links posted above, they are hardly complete, and while they may be arguably correct pont for point I couldn't agree with them.
If GRSEC is so good why have I never heard of any fully developed policy models? SE-Linux can run pretty much out of the box on a fully-featured server. I've run it without undue difficulty on 3 different distributions.
Spender and the RSBAC people both like to get up and say tbat LSM is no good. Lots of reasons are given e.g. "it doesn't provide full Bell-LaPadula security assurance" or "parts are patented".
I would counter:
Both grsec and rsbac are piecemeal solutions, pretty much a hodgepodge of admittedly good ideas patching the kernel to implement 'security'. By comparison LSM/SEL are integrated into the mainline kernel now, and the chosen perimiter is a pretty good one for practically improving Unix (Linux) security issues.
The 'Bell-La Padula' argument basically is complaining that SEL isn't setup for MLS (Multi-level-secure) so it must be no fscking good (TM). This of course is neglecting that the *target* audience for MLS computing (CIA, NSA, DOD ...) have given up on it, my understading is that most MLS implementations have been replaced with air-gapped systems to deal with the levels.
Now if the intended users if MLS (class B and A TCSEC evaluated systems) who have very deep pockets indeed have scrapped them who the hell are the targetted users?
As an amusing side story the founder of a distribution based on RSBAC not only had no idea about this when he started the project, he also had no idea what MLS was and had never read word one of the TCSEC. And when he did he was suddenly wondering how to get evaluated (for a certification that's no longer even available).
So basically I think Spender is interested in being *right*, not interested in doing collaborative work and when something better (in the sense of *practical and useful* came along he had little more to do than poke technical holes in it.
So I'm not in the least surprised that he's losing his funding. LSM/SEL is available, works now and is cost-effective to actually use on production servers.
It's the easiest thing in the world to point out that someone else's system design is not perfectly secure. However practical security is more a matter of practice and process than design anyway. And in the final analysis if you're not willing to make something that actually works (and to work with others to achieve that) then you're gonna have a hard time finding customers.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Solar Designer released the Openwall patch to kernel 2.4.26 on April 17th, three days after the kernel itself was released. That's pretty active maintainance if not development of new features. I like it because it tends to be more conservative than many other security patches out there.
So far my understanding is that
GRSecurity:
* Fixes the problems in Linux that normally make Linux hard to secure
* Is very kernel version specific (ie, maintenance intensive)
* Easy to use
* Roughly equivilant to, or slightly better than, many other existing hardening 'patches'
The author backs some of this up by saying: "Though grsecurity is licensed under the GPL, I am the sole developer and originator of ideas for the project. Though it would be possible for others to handle maintenance of the project, the quality won't be held to the same standards and will not progress with the same goals I have set for the project."
So - it's either badly designed or grossly incomplete. Or both.
If it is maintenance intensive then the system needs a redesign from the bottom up, or deeper - draw up new specifications keeping in mind the limitations of the system you are modifying.
If it's grossly incomplete then there is little loss to the community. It may have been a great personal loss, but you should never, ever do what this devloper did - float a loan for someone else which they could not personally handle. You don't have to be a business wizard in order to feed yourself.
From Michael Gerber's book "E-Myth Revisited":
Poor businesspeople work "in" the business - they're technicians who daily make the product or service. The business can't succeed without the individual, who may be a genius at providing a product or service but spends every day firefighting.
Brilliant company owners work "on" the business. They build systems, processes, and techniques so the business runs smoothly. These awsome managers don't just solve problems, they invent solutions that eliminate problems forever, or that automatically deal with the issue when it comes up again.(emphasis mine)
If this project requires constant maintenance, or cannot survive without this particular programmer, then it is firmly in the 'poor firefighting technician' category.
Poor guy. I hope he gets on his feet and succesfully finds something that fulfills his need to create. This obviously is not the kind of work he's cut out for, though, and I hope, for his sake, that he chooses not to allow further sponsership of his work on this project.
-Adam
This post by Marius Amodt Eriksen is most insightful.