Slashdot Mirror
Antivirus Firm Kaspersky Launches Its Own Hackproof OS, Based On Microkernel (fossbytes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fossbytes: Kaspersky Lab, a Russian cybersecurity and antivirus company, has announced their new operating system which was in development for the last 14 years. Dubbed as Kaspersky OS, it has made its debut on a Kraftway Layer 3 Switch. Not many details have been revealed by the CEO Eugene Kaspersky in his blog post. The GUI-less OS -- as it appears in the image -- has been designed from scratch and Eugene said it doesn't have "even the slightest smell of Linux." He actually tagged "Kaspersky OS being non-Linux" as one of the three main distinctive features he mentioned. The other two features he briefly described are rather fascinating. The first feature is that the Kaspersky OS is based on microkernel architecture, which basically means using the minimum amount of ingredients to bake your own operating system. The OS can be custom-designed as per requirements by using different modification blocks. The second distinctive feature is the inbuilt security system which can control application behavior and OS modules. It touts Kaspersky OS as practically unhackable, unless a cyber-baddie has a quantum computer -- which will be required to crack the digital signature of the platform -- at his disposal.
Nothing is Hackproof, the internet always finds a way.
I don't see any mention of the source code being available, and if that turns out to be the case, I wouldn't touch this "secure OS" with a ten foot pole. Who says it's secure? They do? And I'm supposed to just believe it?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
"Hackproof"
Aaaaand ... it's hacked.
Hackproof? Now that sounds like a challenge...
+5 funny
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
Your buttfucking is intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
OpenBSD is secure, correct, microkernel-based and doesn't contain any parts of Linux. What is essentially different?
The first feature is that the Kaspersky OS is based on microkernel architecture, which basically means using the minimum amount of ingredients to bake your own operating system.
The rest of the operating system outside the microkernel will still need to include all the other desired operating system features missing from the microkernel. There are the same "amount of ingredients", they're just mostly implemented outside the kernel.
www.buttfuckingfaggotsofslashdot.com is our web address.
Brought to you by BeauHD
Besides, it's not Soviet Russia. In Putin's Russia, OS hacks you!
Then come over to Soylent News where we love fucking the asses of our fellow men!
I was a skeptic until I read this:
First, it’s based on microkernel architecture
Ok... say no more... I am convinced!
Second, there’s its built-in security system
Woah.... slow down! Here's my money! TAKE IT!
Third, everything has been built from scratch
I am not sure how I continue to type this with and exploded head....
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
While Timmay is rimming him.
There is already an OS which is all of those things. Nothing is completely "unhackable" but I'd trust something which is as mature as QNX way way more than this new experimental crap.
If you read TFA this guys says:
"The first feature is that the Kaspersky OS is based on microkernel architecture, which basically means using the minimum amount of ingredients to bake your own operating system. The OS can be custom-designed as per requirements by using different modification blocks. This is similar to what Cyanogen Inc. has implemented in the module-based form of Cyanogen Modular OS for smartphones."
Unless I have missed something Cyanogen's OS is still using a normal monolithic kernel. Actually this guys description would pretty well include normal module loading and unloading in the linux OS. Why do people who don't understand things try to explain them by comparing them to other things they probably also don't understand?
But then I read Fossbytes 'about us' page and realized that they are just another aggregator running out of Delhi, and their biggest claim to fame is 300,000 followers on social media. Can't we at least get a link to the horse's mouth like
https://eugene.kaspersky.com/2...
instead of re-aggregating an poorly written per-aggregated mention of the news?
"Proximity to wonder has blunted our perception and appreciation of it" --Tim Hartnell in 'Exploring ARTIFICIAL INTELLI
Would remind you that hack-proof OS is asking for trouble just as much as "unsinkable ship"
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It's really just Mac OS 8.6 and some abstraction layers...
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Russia and trusted OS goes tougher like vodka and cookies.
Looks like it's user environment for PikeOS:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspersky_OS
Which might make it reliable but won't save it from broken hardware (rowhammer, etc), firmware and design/coding bugs...
A lot of confidentiality is acheivable, but bugs lead to covert channels, and they seem insanely hard to find. That means a lot of maintenance. If his kernel sees reasonable sales, I'll buy in.
davecb@spamcop.net
The fact we have virtual machines all over the place and getting way too much use is proof that all operation systems have failed a big part of their job.
The severe overhead of a VM you think would be motive to create OS that fix the problems VM solves. Microkernels have overhead nobody wanted but here we are with more overhead.... A microkernel doesn't solve all the issues but it is a move in the right direction. We have to have OS that will give up performance for security minded features and more configurability.
VMs primarily provide a huge barrier and next they provide the supporting software with versions that work -- software conflicts plague OS especially when they are common shared components which work on one and break another... Setting up a BSD Jail and multiple copies of supporting libraries of different versions is a lot more work than just setting up a virtual machine for each program... or better yet, a pre-made and automatically configured VM. Now we auto build VMs and bring them up and down with less effort than installing and configuring software. That shouldn't be the case! This still wouldn't help with the issues of incompatibilities that prevent software from working between OS. That is a whole other failure created by industry that seems impossible to fix without running multiple OS when the software was compiled for the same hardware. One should be able to run libraries like WINE to get programs to run on the same OS reliably. Perhaps we need to aim for something akin to Google's Salt but on an OS level so programs are more portable and isolated?
"Crack the digital signature of the platform," wtf does that even mean, please.
.. it's so secure it can only run a very stripped down version of hello world.
Among the popular security features are the TKA and M.A.M.
Trump Kernel Api - the only API that strips down logic expression to just "false"
McAffee-Mode - deletes every trace
@Eugene
If you're really serious. Relase the binary to public and bet your whole money on the "not hackable" challenge.
So have they spent 14 years reinvented the wheel and made yet another Minix 3.3? '
Or given the vagueness of the press release, have they just taken Minix 3.3 under the BSD licence and called it Kaspersky OS?
Hackers only go after popular OSes. What motivation would any hacker have to try to hack into, say, Beos? Based on this reasoning, I'd say the new Kaspersky OS will indeed be pretty safe. :-)
exec("/bin/sh", 0, CLONE_PERM) is all you need to get a root shell.
Maybe the increase in competition will be a good thing.
On the negative side, hardware (esp. DRAM) is becoming a security nightmare, and I don't think Kaspersky OS is going to mitigate that any better than the others.
"even the slightest smell of Linux" huh? Well where is the link for the *.iso download? I wanna be the judge of that. It sure looks like a Linux based OS to me. All it's missing is the little Penguin in the middle of the KasperskyOS logo. WHATEVER
They should call it KaOS...
For the commenters above: Kaspersky doesn't care what you think about this OS. It is not made for you, but for use inside country and Kaspersky as a national contractor.
Why build their own kernel instead of using the formally verified (or semi-formally verified for more modern architecture) seL4 kernel? Sounds like not invented here syndrome.
Minix is microkernel based, and still in constant development. It would also be pretty much free of Linux code. Although, I admit, I haven't played with it since the early days of Linux....
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
in 3-2-1...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Macintosh...
Is it HURD? HURD is very much non-linux and microkernel.