Slashdot Mirror


A Secure OS For the Dalai Lama?

Jamyang (Greg Walton) writes "I am editor of the Infowar Monitor and co-author of the recent report, Tracking Ghostnet. I have been asked by the Office of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama (OHHDL) and the Tibetan Government in Exile (TGIE) to offer some policy recommendations in light of the ongoing targeted malware attacks directed at the Tibetan community worldwide. Some of the recommendations are relatively straightforward. For example, I will suggest that OHHDL convene an international Board of Advisers, bringing together some of the brightest minds in computer and international security to advise the Tibetans, and that the new Tibetan university stands up a Certified Ethical Hacking course. However, one of the more controversial moves being actively debated by Tibetans on the Dharamsala IT Group [DITG] list, is a mass migration of the exile community (including the government) to Linux, particularly since all of the samples of targeted malware collected exploit vulnerabilities in Windows. I would be very interested to hear Slashdot readers opinions on this debate here." (More below.) Jamyang continues: "Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment here: in the short term, moving to a platform that is perhaps less familiar to the attacker provides considerable relief, but it is essentially less difficult to write exploits for Mac OS/Linux than it is for Windows, given the many anti-exploitation mechanisms Microsoft has embedded in the last years, so in the long run, if the attackers want your data, the entire move is moot. People should choose a platform based on their productivity requirements instead of purely security. Furthermore, most of the web servers broken into during these attacks (to be used as command and control servers) were not Windows, but Linux. What do you think?

(While I have the floor I'd also like to take this opportunity to plug two initiatives where Slashdot readers can directly help the Tibetan tech community, either through sharing your expertise or your cash! Firstly, one of the obstacles to migrating to Linux for a Tibetan speaker is the lack of decent Tibetan font — can you help? Secondly, Avaaz is raising funds for projects that will help End The Blackout in Tibet, including a proposal to support the deployment of Psiphon's circumvention network. Thanks, or in Tibetan, thuk.je.che!"

68 of 470 comments (clear)

  1. Lack of font? Design your own! by Skinkie · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is clear that if an entire community has a requirement for a certain font designing a new one is the most easy thing to do. Release it as free and you have a problem solved. Don't any Tibetan Typographers exist? So with a bit of Googling they do exist and can be found here: http://www.thdl.org/

    --
    Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
    1. Re:Lack of font? Design your own! by belmolis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, designing a Tibetan font is rather difficult. Tibetan letters combine in complicated ways (somewhat like Devanagari, but worse), meaning that it is either necessary to produce very sophisticated rendering software/info or necessary to create a large number of pre-combined glyphs.

    2. Re:Lack of font? Design your own! by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And failing the thousands of monks having nothing better to do than to spend hours with FontForge, they could just import (read: infringe upon copyright) the fonts they like under Windows and place them into Linux.

      The original notions put forward do mirror my initial concerns when moving from Windows to Linux. Among those concerns were a good Japanese language interface and input method, good fonts and printer support. The first two were addressed with some heavy pushing in that direction with SCIM and whatever it was that came before it... then it became as good or better than Windows. The other was just opening up some man pages or simply giving it a try... turned out not to be difficult in the slightest.

      Moving to a different operating system is a seemingly daunting task to those who have never done it before and they are required, then, to think of computing in terms of what you need to do and how you might accomplish it... not something most people are accustomed to thinking about. (The same can be said about moving from Word Perfect to Microsoft Word and it was a BIG deal!)

      Moving away from Windows is simply necessary judging by the kinds of attacks described. Another option might be Deep Freeze... has that been defeated yet?

      One thing is for certain: one should not be stopped from performing a necessary task merely because it is "difficult." Just do it. If it seems impossible, give it a try anyway. But moving the religious leader and all his followers to Linux is definitely a workable thing to do.

    3. Re:Lack of font? Design your own! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      But converting the religious leader and all his followers to Linux is definitely a workable thing to do.

    4. Re:Lack of font? Design your own! by g0at · · Score: 5, Funny

      put together their own Linux distro

      Dalai Linux!

    5. Re:Lack of font? Design your own! by Kaboom13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know purists will hate this, but another solution would be to create a standardized way to display tibetan without the letter combination. Just like japanese has a more or less standardized process for displaying japanese words in the roman alphabet, a way to do something simliar in Tibetan would be useful. Spending a ton of time modifying all western software to use advanced typography to display Tibetan "correctly" could well backfire. The end result would be the effort required would result in few programs being translated at all, and another language becoming the defacto standard for computer savvy Tibetans. That road leads to youth with minimal skills in their own cultural language.

    6. Re:Lack of font? Design your own! by Microlith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just like japanese has a more or less standardized process for displaying japanese words in the roman alphabet

      Mashing everything into the roman alphabet isn't necessarily the best thing. The Japanese don't use romaji at all in any real contexts. So it's a more complex script? Make sure Unicode supports it. Update the rendering engines to handle it. No sense in forcing people to give up part of their language just to use software.

      another language becoming the defacto standard for computer savvy Tibetans

      In case you hadn't noticed, English was already the worldwide de-facto standard for computing. It isn't computing professionals these programs are localized (properly) for in most cases. Also, changing your society to match the capabilities of some software is -always- the wrong way.

    7. Re:Lack of font? Design your own! by belmolis · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, I would say that it is more difficult than Arabic. In the case of Arabic you've just got positional variants of most letters, but they don't actually combine in particularly complicated ways, with a few limited exceptions that can be treated as ligatures, e.g. alif-lam. The problem in Tibet in is that you not only have vowel diacritics like in Devanagari but complex stacks of consonants.

    8. Re:Lack of font? Design your own! by TheoMurpse · · Score: 4, Funny

      So is the new college slogan "FREE (LIBRE) TIBET!"?

    9. Re:Lack of font? Design your own! by Erikderzweite · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It reminds me of how Bhutan's government has developed its own Debian derivative - Dzongkha Debian Linux - which supports their native language. They have made a font for it too. Costs: around $80 000. I'm sure Tibet can afford such a price.

    10. Re:Lack of font? Design your own! by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, I think the FOSS acronym for Free & Open Source Software would become "Oppressed But Engaging In Passive Resistance Software".

      I'm not sure, however, what RMS would make of the acronym OBEIPRS.

      --
      I hate printers.
    11. Re:Lack of font? Design your own! by javajawa · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, There are about five free, unicode fonts that I know of for Tibetan and Dzongkha. Both Windows and Linux support these fonts, and many traditional texts have been typed in unicode. (OSX has a small problem, from what I've heard).

      There are two produced by Chris Fynn TibetanMachineUnicode from THDL, and Jomolhari. Both UChen fonts.

      CTRC produces four fonts (1 UChen and three Ume): CTRC-Uchen, CTRC-Tsumachu, CTRC-Betsu and CTRC-Drutsa

      Additionally, Nithartha has made a proprietary unicode complying font called Sambhota.

      There are also several legacy font systems which use several font files with prestacked characters and input programs.

      This link http://www.aerifal.cx/~dalias/bodyig/fonts/ should give plenty more examples.

      --

      Meh

    12. Re:Lack of font? Design your own! by speedtux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Combining letters aren't an intrinsic necessity in any language, they are an affectation and a mechanism for keeping people illiterate. European languages used to have them and got rid of them because the only purpose they serve is to restrict access to reading and writing.

      Tibetan can be written just fine in an alphabetic style. It would be prudent for the Dalai Lama to make that the standard for the Tibetan community.

    13. Re:Lack of font? Design your own! by speedtux · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Also, changing your society to match the capabilities of some software is -always- the wrong way.

      Sorry to be so blunt, but that's bullshit. Europe made massive changes to its writing systems with the advent of new writing and printing technologies. And that was the right thing to do because it greatly increased literacy.

      Tibetan literacy rates historically have been atrocious, and even today, they are worse than many other nations. Reform and simplification of the Tibetan writing system might well be the right thing to do, and the requirements of software generally coincide with sensible simplification.

    14. Re:Lack of font? Design your own! by rtfa-troll · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are trying to solve the wrong problem. You are assuming that you are facing random attacks from an attacker who just wants to go for some computer, any computer. In that case being on an uncommon system helps because the attacker sees less profit. However; in this specific case moving to a low usage system is the worst possible thing you can do. The attacker is the Chinese government and they have the resources and will to make special dedicated custom attacks. Moving to an OS that nobody else uses gives them several advantages.

      A) the system is less likely to have had serious peer review so finding vulnerabilities should be easier for their Chinese enemies.
      B) the Chinese attackers can minimise collateral damage:

      note the Chinese do not want to cause needless trouble - if they release an exploit for a windows vulnerability they have a risk of damaging random US govt computers which might give a propaganda advantage to Pentagon people at the wrong moment. It's much more convenient for them if they have an easy way to identify a Tibetan computer. If only Tibetans use an OS, then attacking that OS is perfect.

      Things that the Tibetans want within their system.

      A) serious general stability and safety (==properly audited open source by people who take security seriously)
      B) methods to recognise applications which have gone rogue (==mandatory access control per application)
      C) proper systems for monitoring system changes (==tripwire etc)
      D) variable security so that experts in their community can detect problems whilst others can still work (==security features such as SELinux which can be turned on gradually)
      E) fully controlled but very rapid security updates (==apt / yum etc).

      For me that means that they want to have serious mandatory access control / role based access so that they can build application specific traps for malware (as in SELINUX). They need to have a system they can basically trust (OpenBSD) They want to have file based intrusion detection (tripwire / OpenBSD's systems). They need to have a system where they can take updates under their own control, but mostly don't have to do that.

      When it comes to what I would recommend for them that's an incredibly difficult problem. Windows is out because it fails to provide so many of the basics. OpenBSD I would love to recommend, but the impossibility of building automated updates and the lack of role based access control rules it out for me. Probably I would end up recommending a CentOS (for normal users/people without money)/RedHat (for places needing commercial support) based system with a custom update distribution in places where RedHat's update policy is insufficient or where attacks via RedHat are a fear.

      One thing which is absolutely clear; Windows should be ruled out

      A) The Chinese government has preferential access to the Windows source code. As such they will always know a vulnerability you don't. If you are their enemy then it can never be an acceptable system.
      B) Windows is closed source and the build is under someone else's control; this means you can never be sure what is on your system and can never reduce it to just the components you need
      C) Windows is closed source and won't publish the source after a security breach; this makes it impossible to isolate root causes for an attack and stop them happening again.
      D) Windows is closed source and impossible to customise. This makes it impossible to set traps for malware with custom security systems and leads to a security monoculture.
      E) Windows is run by a commercial entity with an interest in turning on functionality. This means that even secure systems very rapidly become insecure when used by less experienced users.

      However there's one crucial problem

      A,B,C,D...Z) If the user administrator is clueless they won't spot attacks so a total Linux newbie will be much worse than a Windows expert.

      Overall, the advice to move to Linux isn't bad, but it's something which the Tibetan community will have to do in a very serious and planned way whilst at the same time building up the number of security experts in their community and doing serious work on this. Without that kind of effort the effect will be worse than their current situation.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    15. Re:Lack of font? Design your own! by jonaskoelker · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dalai Linux!

      It really whips the Llama's ass!

  2. Huh? by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment here: in the short term, moving to a platform that is perhaps less familiar to the attacker provides considerable relief, but it is essentially less difficult to write exploits for Mac OS/Linux than it is for Windows, given the many anti-exploitation mechanisms Microsoft has embedded in the last years, so in the long run, if the attackers want your data, the entire move is moot."

    First off, yes, that is a single sentence.

    Secondly, exactly who is it who says (or can demonstrate) that cracking a Mac or Linux box is easier than a Windows box? My experience is exactly the opposite.

    1. Re:Huh? by cjfs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Secondly, exactly who is it who says (or can demonstrate) that cracking a Mac or Linux box is easier than a Windows box? My experience is exactly the opposite.

      The language is vague enough to be pointless. Does he mean when run by the user as root? Does he mean remote exploit vs something in the full install of ___ distro? Does he mean windows makes you click yes more times to run it?

      Now half the comments will be off-topic due to that sentence.

    2. Re:Huh? by maz2331 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Especially if the sysadmins take an active role in:

      A. Customizing and minimizing the installed packages.
      B. Configuring a very restrictive set of firewall rules.
      C. Configuring a very tight SELinux policy.

      The key to Linux is to not think of it as on Operating System so much as an "OS Toolbox" that lets you build just what is needed.

    3. Re:Huh? by dangitman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your windows install has at least been verified by a known party.

      Yes, a known incompetent party, which has very little concern for security or the vetting of source code, but has rather different interests foremost.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:Huh? by J+Story · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are thousands of attack vectors into linux, far more than there are into any windows software.

      How do you know this? A claim this large needs to be supported by something more than mere assertion.

    5. Re:Huh? by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not sure on what are you on, but must be strong. You seriously suggest Microsoft, the I-included-government-backdoor-in-every-windows Microsoft, the one that will do almost anything to enter into the chinese market, to provide the "secure" OS to the Dalai Lama?

      I almost can hear a child saying "but... the emperor is naked!". The track of successful attacks on the windows platform, even to secure savvy people, is too long. And some of those attacks were discovered long after the fact just because tiny discrepancies.

      No, not sure if there are "formal" auditing into code that goes into kernel or major pieces of the puzzle that is open source, but from there to say that noone checks another's work at all goes a bit of distance. And there is some strenght into the "puzzle" part.

      Yes, could be an infiltration in open source software if you take an army of skilled programmers for that task, that could eventually could be busted or not (the many eyes theory is not a guarantee, but is a posibility that exist).

      But what if a closed source company wants to put something intended in their OS? Remember how easy was to the security experts to decipher what Conficker will do? And that wasnt even from the maker of the OS.

      My recommendation would be something open source, not so edgy, that passed the test of time, but secure and functional.

    6. Re:Huh? by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Microsoft knows the social security numbers, bank accounts, and in most cases close associates of all these people.

      So what? China plays a long game, people could have been sent to immigrate to the US years ago. With travel to the China very common these days, could you be sure that China has not succeeded in planting spies?

      I'm sure that were one to dig deep enough, you'd find that the xp kernel (like some central parts of the linux kernel) has been vetted by NSA experts.

      Forget the kernel -- it's the compiler that is the key. Didn't someone show years ago how code could be inserted into a compiler and once it was there, there was no way to remove it -- apart from going back through the archives and finding a sufficiently old and uninfected compiler? If the compiler adds code to the kernel every time the kernel is built, you can spend forever vetting the kernel source code, but not find the vulnerability that the compiler inserted.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:Huh? by putaro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't need to because there are hundreds of code reviews ongoing on the Linux kernel code all the time.

      The key word here is Open Source. There are enough paranoids out there using the Linux kernel that I'm sure just about everything gets plenty of scrutiny. If you are a party with something to worry about, like the Tibetan Gov't in Exile you could get a few people together to vet the code that goes into your own build and monitor the patches that go in. That is something you cannot do with Windows or any other closed source product (that include Mac OS X, really, as what comes from Apple has a bunch of closed source extensions). Doing your own security review would be difficult but it is possible.

      If I had to bet my life on something it sure wouldn't be Windows.

    8. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are thousands of attack vectors into linux, far more than there are into any windows software.

      How much source code have you verified on your linux install ? Your windows install has at least been verified by a known party. Anyone wanting to get into your system will have to get past microsoft first.

      Microsoft verify its software so well that it doesn't even know what it's privileged services do. They had to create an "archaeological" team to discover how their CIFS redirector works, just to be able to write the documentation the EU antitrust mandated them to write as a remedy.

      It is well known that they historically never created. much less used extensive test suites.
      Proof is the number of regressions you can see in their server software from one release to the other. Their testing method has always just been to run a battery of clients with Office and other "important" application to make sure they did not "break".

      Now in theory getting into a linux system would require getting past redhat or canonical.

      In practice, as several breaches have demonstrated, compromising ANY widely used project (who accept volunteers as full comitting members merely for showing a bit of ability) would be sufficient.

      And yet there is no evidence that any reasonably popular Linux distribution is compromised.

      It's easy to fantasize on what could happen, but empirical evidence shows this is mere speculation.

      How many chinese spies are working on the linux kernel. Improving it, yes, but also ...

      And how many have been working for Microsoft, with the added "benefit" that nobody can review the code outside of said organization? (which as mentioned above has already demonstrated it doesn't know its own code?)

      Do you dare to bet your life on the answer being zero ?

      As much as I can bet my life on any other hw/sw system.

      A full linux install being trustworthy is dependant on tens of thousands of coders all being trustworthy (since in practice, nobody checks one another's work, and no "real" security audits are being conducted. Checking personnel is considered heresy, refusing code based on lack of credentials is something that cannot ever be mentioned).

      Man so much FUD in a single sentence is staggering.

      1) any major (and certainly any security sensitive project) is checked. Every single checking is normally reviewed by at least another developer. This is true both for the kernel and many other projects. So the idea that nobody checks one another work is total bullshit.

      2) not only code is checked by automatic checkers for defects, a lot of cryptographic and security software is routinely certified (FIPS and others) and reviewed both internally and by external organizations.

      3) There is no need to refuse code on the basis of lack of credentials, because the code is *reviewed* first. So if you do something that is not simply stupid but that is malicious you can bet none of your code will never be reviewed again, much less committed.

      4) Obviously you have never developed any major FOSS software ...

      You want to be secure against chinese interference ? Go to microsoft or ibm. Not because they do not have chinese spies in their organisations, but because they most likely do not have 1000 chinese spies in them.

      1,10,100,1000, does it make any difference?
      What you need is 1, and only 1.

      Also, those spies have to get past at least a single code review (one hopes) before compromising all customer's security.

      Ya, rly ?

      Sorry to break the news to you : open source software, in it's current form, cannot defend against a concerted attack by any large groups of individuals. It can't be done. It doesn't have to be the chinese. It's a matter of time before isla

    9. Re:Huh? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can you say the same for linux kernel contributors ?

      It doesn't matter where an idea came from -- that's why Ad Hominim is a fallacy.

      It matters whether it's valid.

      So yes, I can say the same for the part that matters:

      I'm sure that were one to dig deep enough, you'd find that the xp kernel (like some central parts of the linux kernel) has been vetted by NSA experts.

      There you have it -- some central parts of the Linux kernel have been vetted by NSA experts.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    10. Re:Huh? by exponential · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh that wonderful little drama again.

      Had you followed that event a bit more closely, you would have known that little snippet of code had zero (yes, none, zilch) possibility of getting into Linus' branch, where all the public releases are made. In fact judging from your post I'd say you have no idea of what really happened at all.

      Do you seriously think they only introduced one problematic piece of code ?

      No. I think it's one less than that. It might surprise you, but unlike some proprietary software, the big oss projects aren't big piles of mysterious crap, the developers really do understand their code.

      News of successful incursions will, for obvious reasons, not be released until untold damage is done

      With countless diligent people like you keeping a watchful eye, I'm sure any news of successful incursions into free/open source software will be promptly released when it happens. Or perhaps even earlier than that!

    11. Re:Huh? by thebigbadme · · Score: 3, Funny

      several decades in a little box with no windows.

      Sounds like FOSS heaven

      /stupid humor

      --
      "It's the Law of the Universe, and I'm the sheriff." Slash-cott 2/10-2/17
    12. Re:Huh? by Torodung · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes. Congratulations. You've just demonstrated that the C programmming language makes the difference between a hack and an evaluation statement come down to nothing more than an extra "=."

      Every OS sucks, because C sucks.

      --
      Toro

      (Spot the syntax error in this post!)

    13. Re:Huh? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 5, Informative

      I agree with you that Linux in general isn't a very safe bet when you want to be secure, especially not if you are worried about targeted attacks.

      However, that does not mean that ``open source software, in it's current form, cannot defend against a concerted attack by any large groups of individuals. It can't be done.''

      There is a project called OpenBSD which does exactly what you suggest open source projects don't do: conduct security audits of their whole system.

      Personally, I would trust OpenBSD much more than I would any closed-source vendor. Also, OpenBSD has a number of security features that limit the impact of any vulnerabilities not caught by the audit process.

      Also, Debian has an audit process that looks not only at the base system, but also at the packages that are included in the distribution. This does not cover all packages, but goes a whole lot further than what many vendors (particularly Microsoft) offer.

      On the whole, I think you are being overly negative about security in the open source world, and too optimistic about security in the closed source world. From personal experience, I can tell you from personal experience that the idea that code in closed-source projects has to make it past "at least one code review" is simply wishful thinking. By contrast, the idea that code has to pass at least one review before being accepted is an actual reality in at least some open source projects (including Linux and OpenBSD).

      So, while certainly not claiming that using Debian or even OpenBSD is a panacea for security, I have much more faith in those projects than in any closed source project.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    14. Re:Huh? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why are you trusting Massachusetts,or the US Government? I'm not sure I understand why. Especially, Massachusetts seems weird. Do they have some elite code review department I am unaware of?

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    15. Re:Huh? by walshy007 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You have little clue about the reality of oss code checking etc. I implore you to submit a patch to a random major oss project that causes a vulnerability and see if it becomes accepted.

      Within projects there are hierarchies of developers, everyone checks eachothers code up the chain, and the lower people can check the upper chains patches also, of course with little recourse over the source tree except to perhaps fork, but people will be notified if anything malicious happens at the upper echelons.

      As for you shouldn't trust any author with oss, check all code yourself, how is that any different from saying 'you shouldn't trust any proprietary code, you should check it all in a debugger and reverse engineer it yourself'?

      at least oss has transparency, and you can see the trails of who has done what. I agree the packagers almost always trust upstream, but why shouldn't they? upstream will have clean packages or they will fall from grace when it is discovered by a curious third party. It is in upstreams best interest to thoroughly ensure the source is clean.

      It is very non-trivial for a new developer to have a large patch accepted in a major oss project, entirely because of all of the checks and balances upstream (the people who write the software).

      at the core of any successful oss project, is typically a few (2-20) core people that oversee, check everything and are dedicated to making the project a success, putting backdoors in does not help that goal.

  3. Free Tibet! by dj245 · · Score: 4, Funny

    With purchase of Tibet of equal or lesser value.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  4. First thoughts by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it is essentially less difficult to write exploits for Mac OS/Linux than it is for Windows, given the many anti-exploitation mechanisms Microsoft has embedded in the last years, so in the long run, if the attackers want your data, the entire move is moot.

    As opposed to the anti-exploitation frameworks which were present in UNIX systems from the moment they were conceived? and continually updated since? You've been listening to too much Microsoft advertising if you think they're Superior. (Competitive? Maybe. Superior? Not a chance).

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  5. A secure OS for the office of HH the Dalai Lama by AndyCater · · Score: 5, Informative

    Talk to the Bhutanese Govt. They're now using a Debian variant with localised scripts for Dzongha. Debian includes some Tibetan fonts.

    That should give you 20,000 apps to leverage :) Christian Perrier who co-ordinates some of the Debian translation work may know more.

  6. If the only thing they run is windows... by saleenS281 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The only exploits they're going to discover are windows exploits. I hope you've made them well aware exploits exist for every platform, and if someone is directly targeting them rather than just being hit by run-of-the-mill worms, they're going to get in. You should focus your efforts on limiting the amount of damage someone can do once they do get in.

    1. Re:If the only thing they run is windows... by edsousa · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I would focus on teaching them security practices:
      • do not open attachments you don't know
      • don't store your confidential data on your laptop
      • keep and check if auto-updates are working
      • report any suspect of breach to IT

      Most of all, make sure that anyone that uses a computer is aware of the risks. Even more sure with higher clearance levels.

  7. Single OS not good for Dahli Lama's computer by multipartmixed · · Score: 5, Funny

    If *I* was in charge of the DL's computer, I wouldn't put on *only* Linux or *only* Windows or what have you. I think the DL needs a multiboot machine, and would really appreciate it if you tried to make him one with everything.

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  8. Paranoid Linux someday, NetBSD now. by 7Ghent · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://paranoidlinux.org/ is a project to create a distribution which assumes the user is under assault from the government. Right now, it's a vaguely locked down version of Ubuntu, but someday this might be pretty cool.

    In the meantime, just run NetBSD and full-disk encryption.

    From wikipedia:
    NetBSD provides various features in the security area. The Kernel Authorization framework (or Kauth) is a subsystem managing all authorization requests inside the kernel, and used as system-wide security policy. It allows external modules to plug-in the authorization process. NetBSD also incorporates exploit mitigation features, ASLR, MPROTECT and Segvguard from PaX project, and GCC Stack Smashing Protection (SSP, or also known as ProPolice) compiler extensions. The Verified Executables (or Veriexec) is an in-kernel file integrity subsystem in NetBSD. It allows the user to set the digital fingerprints (hashes) of files in the system to monitor by the Veriexec, and prevent the execution of them. For example, one can allow Perl to run only scripts that match the fingerprints. The cryptographic device driver (CGD) provides functionality which allows using the disks or partitions (including CDs and DVDs) for encrypted storage in NetBSD.

    1. Re:Paranoid Linux someday, NetBSD now. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My reluctance with BSD is the lack of "rich entertainment"

      I use netbsd on my servers and some workstations. The lack of a rich environment is a defence against PEBAK. The problem is selling it to the users.

      Done properly, the users would need to specify up front exactly what they want their system to do, so that a solution could be designed from those requirements. A lot of the time these days, secure communication is a prime requirement and BSD can certainly provide that.

  9. Practical considerations and philosophical ones by funkapus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First of all, converting the Dalai Lama to Linux is about the coolest IT project I've ever heard of, so congratulations

    That aside, there are practical considerations and there are philosophical ones you'll want to consider. Practically speaking, no platform is 100% secure. Linux has historically been more secure than Windows. MS has made a lot of progress in the last decade or so.

    The question is, do you prefer the closed-source approach or the open-source one? Would you rather the problems be hidden away, or laid out for all to find? In the closed-source scenario, knowledge of exploits may be less common, but that cuts two ways. Less attackers will be aware of an exploit, but less defenders will be aware of it as well. That may well result in the exploits that do occur being much more severe.

    Beyond those practical considerations, which approach fits better with the values of the Tibetan community and the Dalai Lama in particular? In my mind, open source is the embodiment of non-attachment.

  10. Greetings Dhali Lama... by armer · · Score: 3, Funny

    I am Suleman , IT Manager of Zenith Bank, Lagos, Nigeria. I have urgent and very confidential business proposition for you. On June 6, 1997, a Foreign IT consultant/contractor with the Nigerian National IT Corporation, Mr. Barry Kelly made a numbered time (Fixed) request for twelve calendar months, for a secure OS. Upon maturity, I sent a routine notification to his forwarding address but got no reply. After a month, we sent a reminder and finally we discovered from his contract employers, the Nigerian National IT Corporation that Mr. Barry Kelly died from an automobile accident. On further investigation, I found out that he died without making a WILL, and all attempts to trace his next of kin was fruitless. I therefore made further investigation and discovered that Mr. Barry Kelly did not declare any kin or relations in all his official documents, including his Bank Deposit paperwork in my Bank. This sum of US$26,500,000.00 has carefully been moved out of my bank to a security company for safe-keeping. Consequently, my proposal is that I will like you as an Foreigner to stand in as the owner of the money I deposited it in a security company in two trunk boxes though the security company does not know the contents of the boxes as I tagged them to be photographic materials for export. This is simple. I will like you to provide immediately your full names and address so that the Attorney will prepare the necessary documents which will put you in place as the as the owner of the boxes. The money will be moved out for us to share in the ratio of 60% for me and 40% for you. There is no risk at all as all the paperworks for this transaction will be done by the Attorney and this will guarantees the successful execution of this transaction. If you are interested, please reply immediately via my email address.And also send your Telephone and fax numbers so that we can have a smooth communication. Upon your response, I shall then provide you with more details and relevant documents that will help you understand the transaction. Awaiting your urgent reply via my email. PLS REPLY TO MY PRAVATE BOX suleman775@mailsurf.com Thanks and regards. Dr.Suleman .

    1. Re:Greetings Dhali Lama... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 4, Funny

      Obviously fake. A real Nigerian scam would have more capital letters and misspelled words.

  11. Bias by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A Secure OS For the Dalai Lama?

    I have absolutely no idea what Slashdot will say to a question like that.

  12. You must not have heard by heybuddy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apparently this Vista thing is the most secure os on the planet.

    1. Re:You must not have heard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apparently this Vista thing is the most secure os on the planet.

      It's the small user base that keeps it secure.

  13. Mac OS X or openBSD by zerobeat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mac OSX might be more secure than windows and may be easier for non technical people (if the TGIE is lacking expertise) to get up and running. Alternatively, use openBSD - quite hard to get fully functional, but the expertise to get it there means anyone who does should have requisite skills to keep the Tibetan Government safe from certain foreign governments. Also, you may find the openBSD people will gladly help with this poltical agenda. Z/

    --
    What other people think of me is none of my business
  14. Something that helps by DeltaQH · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Boot always from an trusted, read only media, like CD/DVD or locked USB thumb drive.

    Media should contain not only OS but applications in trusted configuration. No updates allowed from outside trusted entities

    Use only boot media provided from trusted entity

    Maybe use also something like tripwire to detect change in the OS/applications files checking changes by comparing sensitive file

    Full encryption on sensitive data/drives

  15. your assumptions are wrong by Aurisor · · Score: 4, Informative

    it is essentially less difficult to write exploits for Mac OS/Linux than it is for Windows

    Why would it be more difficult to "write" (aka implement) exploits for one operating system than another? You should be worried about how hard it is to find exploits and how quickly they're fixed.

    Assuming for the moment all you care about is the actual security of your software (excluding implementation details, mis-configurations, etc), the real metric you want to be looking at is the frequency of discovery of serious vulnerabilities and the span of time from first (non-public) discovery (which may not be knowable) and the appearance of a patch you could use. Looking merely at "remote root exploits / year" and "mean time to patch remote root exploit" might not be a bad place to start.

    Also, you need to think about the actual design of the operating systems in question. Without tipping my hand too much, some might say that the Unix user/superuser distinction is something Microsoft could learn from.

    That being said, though, I'll tell you my opinions.

    Netbsd has one of the best track records in the industry with regards to server security. The security of *nix, in general, scales directly with the intelligence of the people managing it. You can get decently far with Windows and just doing things 'by the book,' but it's got all the typical problems of monoculture and a well-deserved poor reputation.

    A group of very intelligent, very technical network admins are nearly unstoppable given linux and sufficient control. A group of very intelligent people can probably make do with Windows too. Windows configured by average people may in some cases be better than Linux configured by average people.

    In any event, just from reading your question, I doubt you are technical enough to undertake this at a nuts-and-bolts level. You kind of came here asking "Is Linux or Windows more secure?" You bet your ass I have an opinion on the matter, but the problem is, so does everyone else. You need to find highly intelligent people, and then use your common sense and analytical thinking to weigh their arguments. In short, stop thinking as if the answer to your question would provide security; find smart people experienced in securing things and then evaluate the tools (operating systems) as they relate to your immediate ends.

  16. Somebody please mod this "underrated" by e9th · · Score: 5, Funny

    After all, this is the worst possible article in which to lose karma.

  17. Red Flag by McGiraf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Red Flag Linux ? ;)

  18. Re:A secure OS for the office of HH the Dalai Lama by cpghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That should give you 20,000 apps to leverage

    And each one with its own set of vulnerabilities.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  19. Coming first isn't always the best thing by fluffy99 · · Score: 4, Informative

    To bad MS has figured out how to implement it consistently. ASLR in Linux is a novelty and usually not the default. Just like selinux is a joke. It's high maintenance and just having it installed doesn't protect anything unless you carefully and manually tweak it. Ever look and see what it actually protects when you enable it on RHEL? Damn near nothing. A carefully setup system with a proper selinux config might be good for a secure, single purpose internet facing server but it usually ends up getting disabled on a desktop computer.

  20. Re:fonts? by zmrow · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm a little surprised to hear that there is no good Tibetan font. Here is a list of Unicode-encoded Tibetan fonts, mostly both free and libre. Do none of them meet the need?

    I agree-- It appears they are possibly misinformed about fonts. There are at least 2 very good True Type Unicode Tibetan fonts-- "Tibetan Machine Unicode" and "Jomolhari", both of which are more attractive, as well as more advanced in their development than Microsoft's "Himalaya" font.

  21. Or Ubuntu, because by notionalTenacity · · Score: 5, Funny

    it's like the soul of Debian, but reincarnated in a new body.

  22. The answer lies within. by dangitman · · Score: 3, Funny

    His Holiness merely needs to look inside his heart, and ask himself; "What is the sound of one server booting?" and then he will know the answer to which platform he should choose. Personally, I think he should go with Amiga. After all, Guru Meditation is what the Lama is all about.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  23. Re:His Holy etc. by pbhj · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or the English Queen?

    Do you mean Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Mercy, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem?

    It's bad enough using this shorthand without her non-regnal titles.

  24. I smell bacon! by Dreadneck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This entire article smells like flamebait to me. I'm going to sit back and watch it burn.

    --
    Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
  25. Re:It is about the process.... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ---One of the ways that I manage my systems is to create a zone where hackers may go, and not go.

    The only way to guarantee that is by an air gap. If data can travel in both directions, it can gone to.

    ---For example, I use a good firewall. That firewalls is allowed to communicate to another firewall. Between the two firewalls is my take down zone. This means if they happen to break through the firewall all they will get are servers that can be taken down anyways.

    ---These take down servers are virtual machine based. So if a machine goes down, who shives a ghit because you just shut down the VM, copy the old one and restart it.

    Lets assume what you say is correct. First, what protections do you have vs the hypervisor running the VMs? How do you prevent starvation of resources by de-fragmenting ill formed packets? If you don't "correct broken packets", then what prevents a fragrouter-like attack right through your network?

    As per your answer of shutting down and reloading, that is not an answer to bad rules that can almost never work, for they will persist until you fix them. Then, when you bring them up, they will be hopped over again.

    (trimmed gobbledegook about unhackable firewalls)

    You can think that you have an unhackable setup. Fine. Perhaps you will investigate what I said, and might take action to test what I claim. But aside that you are probably just as vulnerable as the rest. All that has to really be done is your border router feed bad updates to machines requesting OS updates. Of course, crypto signatures will catch that they don't sign, but that's where we use old packages with known vulnerabilities. I'm sure in your course of duty you don't check the package date, nor do most update programs. Or, perhaps somethings watching for passwords on your external firewall. There's a nice tool called dsniff that does just that.

    In the real world, if you want an unhackable network, you build the network with no external connections. It's as simple as that. The military understands that. Power companies understand that. Industrial control designers understand that. If you want to have a facade that you somehow can super-firewall so that no hacker can get in, so be it. Whatever you put on the internet can potentially end up everywhere. Just look at Wolverine Workprint or multitudes of sex tapes or other media. I'm sure there's some Presidential Helicopter schematics going around in Islamic areas right now, according to my sources.

    --
  26. Font is not a problem... by gzipped_tar · · Score: 3, Informative

    yum install tibetan-machine-uni-fonts

    Of course you may hate YUM but the package is available for other distros as well. Even if you are using Windows (download the font from the url: http://www.thlib.org/tools/#wiki=/access/wiki/site/26a34146-33a6-48ce-001e-f16ce7908a6a/tibetan%20machine%20uni.html)

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
  27. Re:Physical Security First by fluffy99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not the entire US Govt - just the state department. It was a political pissing contest over which contract was used and that Congressman Wolf didn't get a kickback if the contract went through Lenovo who was doing business out of New York. If Chinese made computers or Chinese controlled companies were the issue, they wouldn't have bought any computers. There are no computers made solely with US parts on US soil.

    Computers aren't that big of a deal. You inspect for physical anomalies, wipe the HD and install the OS. You never use the default factory install as its untrustworthy. Same reason you wipe thumb drives on a standalone computer before issuing to your users.

    Now if you want to talk about untrustworthy sources - there are legitimate reasons for the US govt to avoid Kasperasky A/V as the company is owned by an ex-KGB type and has connections to russian hackers.

  28. My god, you drunk deep from the koolaid by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remind me again please which OS the botnet runs on? Thank you.

    MS embeds all kinds of code from third parties. Drivers, libraries etc etc. It has been shown time and time again that there are huge security holes in MS code, holes that are actively exploited. It ain't for nothing that when the NSA wanted to make a proof of concept secure OS they choose linux.

    You got a point, how can you trust any OS if you have not checked the code. Where you take a dive of the deep end is that you then suggest that MS can be trusted to check the code for you. Not trusting say Red Hat blindly that they checked all the code is sensible, trusting Microsoft that they checked all theirs is just plain silly. If they had, they wouldn't have so many bugs. And your fate in your goverment is bordering on the insane.

    Anyway, that same goverment checks linux code. So either both are to be trusted or neither is.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  29. SIL Graphite Smartfont? by sandGorgons · · Score: 4, Informative

    Graphite is an open-source technology, designed for the specific purpose of non-Roman fonts with complex behaviors like contextual shaping, etc.
    Unfortunately, the default font rendering toolkit in Linux, Pango is not a smart-font technology.
    However, the pango-graphite library supports the smartfont technology if fonts are authored with the appropriate tables.

    I think that people need to share their experiences with designing smart fonts. This way, more projects know what are their options.

  30. Re:A secure OS for the office of HH the Dalai Lama by ozbird · · Score: 4, Funny

    That should give you 20,000 apps to leverage :)

    Does it include Enlightenment?

  31. Rather than choosing a secure OS ... by gd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... you need to choose a competent admin. Remember, security is a process, not a product ...

    --
    gd
  32. Re:Oh, so you're playing Devil's Advocate? by likecheese · · Score: 3, Insightful

    when the Chinese invaded. He has consistently supported democracy, equality, and human rights.

    The Dalai Lama may "consistently" espouse such views in public, but his behavior outside the (western) public eye tells a different story. Even for Tibetans now residing on free soil in places such as the US, UK, Germany, and Switzerland, he behaves as a dictator-for-life and demands that they follow his decrees in order to receive travel papers, work permits, food and living allowances, etc. His regime unapologetically practices religious apartheid. Unbelievable? Check out the information and first-hand accounts provided by http://www.westernshugdansociety.org/ and make up your own mind.

  33. You're utterly missing the point. by obarthelemy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not about the OS. I've had Windows servers remain safe for years, and Linux servers be subverted in days.

    Security is an eco-system, not an OS, for example:
    - granting and removing access rights, in a very conservative and up-to-date manner
    - keeping an audit trail of every access
    - locking confidential info so it never gets onto a laptop's HD
    - having backups
    - securing every cog and wheel of the system: client PCs, routers, servers, backups, admin stations...
    - locking down the weakest point: users (weak passwords, copied files, printouts, espionage...)
    - and many more issues.

    In the big picture, the OS is fairly irrelevant. It's only a very small part of the whole system. The whole "we need to be safe - let's switch to Linux" is wrong and shows a tremendous lack of understanding of the issues.

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  34. Re: No, a Trusted OS For the Dalai Lama by Eyeballs · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, these levels of security from the 'orange book' is what I was thinking about when I made an earlier post that recommended an OS from Green Hills Software. They sell an 'A1' level OS, called 'Integrity'.