Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

A Closed Off System?

Posted by Cliff on Tue Jul 11, 2006 09:50 PM
from the would-this-appeal-to-you dept.
Operating Systems Security Software
AnarkiNet wonders: "In an age of malware which installs itself via browsers, rootkits installing themselves from audio cds, and loads of other shady things happening on your computer, would a 'Closed OS' be successful? The idea is an operating system (open or closed source), which allows no third party software to be installed, ever. Yes, not even your own coded programs would run unless they existed in the OS-maker-managed database of programs that could be installed. Some people might be aghast at this idea but I feel that it could be highly useful for example in the corporate setting where there would be no need for a secretary to have anything on his/her computer other than the programs available from the OS-maker. For now, let's not worry if people can 'get around' the system. If each program that made up the collection of allowed programs was 'up to scratch' and had 'everything you need', would you really have an issue with being unable to install a different program that did the same thing?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] IT: Hackers Serving Rootkits with Bagles 150 comments
Iran Contra writes "Security researchers at F-Secure in Finland have discovered a rootkit component in the Bagle worm that loads a kernel-mode driver to hide the processes and registry keys of itself and other Bagle-related malware from security scanners. Bagle started out as a simple e-mail borne executable and the addition of rootkit capabilities show how far ahead of the cat-and-mouse game the attackers are."
[+] IT: Does Open Source Encourage Rootkits? 200 comments
An anonymous reader writes "NetworkWorld reports that security vendor McAfee places the blame for increased numbers of rootkits squarely on the shoulders of the open source community. Others, however, do not agree. From the article: 'Rootkit.com's 41,533 members do post rootkit source code anonymously, then discuss and share the open source code. But it's naïve to say the Web site exists for malicious purposes, contends Greg Hoglund, CEO of security firm HBGary and operator of Rootkit. "It's there to educate people," says Hoglund [...] It's a great resource for anti-virus companies and others. Without it, they'd be far behind in their understanding of rootkits."'"
[+] Developers: Undetectable Rootkits Through Virtualization? 237 comments
techmuse writes "eWeek has an article about a prototype rootkit that is implemented using a virtual machine hypervisor running on top of AMD's Pacifica virtualization implementation. The idea is that the target OS, or software running on it, would not be able to detect the rootkit, because the OS would be running virtualized on top of the rootkit. The prototype is supposed to be demonstrated at the Syscan conference and the Black Hat Briefings over the next month."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

A Closed Off System? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Wouldn't a live CD do this? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amanda-backup (982340) on Tuesday July 11 2006, @09:52PM (#15703090) Homepage
    Doesn't a live OS CD such as Knoppix achieve this goal? These are usually built for "everything you need" for a particular purpose. You can still access and create data on disks on that system, but you never corrupt the programs themselves. If all the applications being used are web based, then things are even simpler - simply boot up with Knoppix, open Firefox and you are ready to go.
    • You can install software on the livecd. It only exists tell the ram is wiped (restarted) but is runs just fine.

    • No. - Re:Wouldn't a live CD do this? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jdogalt (961241) on Tuesday July 11 2006, @10:02PM (#15703129) Journal
      No. LiveCDs do offer read-only system images. But they do nothing whatsoever to prevent other programs from being run. I.e. programs downloaded from the net, autorun(or manually) from cd. LiveCDs get you the benefit that each reboot resets you to an known state. That is quite different from an OS which only allows programs from a blessed whitelist to execute. One scenario might be the discovery of way to remotely log into the system. In the livecd case, the attacker can now run whatever program they want, and likely regain entry in an identical fashion should the system be rebooted. What the author of this post is interested in, is a system what would not let the attacker with remote login be able to execute any code not on the blessed whitelist. Now mind you, the idea that such a system would be 'invulnerable' is ludicrous. The XBox seems the quintessential example of a system which tried to achieve this design goal. My XBox currently runs ssh, freevo, and any executable I want, proving it is difficult to achieve a successful implementation of such a design. -jdog
      • The XBox seems the quintessential example of a system which tried to achieve this design goal. My XBox currently runs ssh, freevo, and any executable I want, proving it is difficult to achieve a successful implementation of such a design

        Yes, but you had to go out of your way in order to achieve this, right? That is, it's not something that happened because of soemething you downloaded off the net did away with the "protection" MS had installed originally in the machine. (Besides, as far as I know, only th

          • Re:No. - Re:Wouldn't a live CD do this? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            What is an executable?

            No, the question is not a joke: What would such an OS do with Active-X and Java? Ok, they support digital signatures and let's believe such a system would work.

            And JavaScript? It's clearly executable, but would it be blocked? Who would use such a computer when 50% of websites are not viewable without JS? Not to mention sites that only exists in the form of one SWF file...

            On a server, JS would not be needed, but usually one needs customization in terms of scripts a.s.o. If the admin cou

      • Seems to be a matter of reading 'man fstab' ... (Score:5, Informative)

        by PaulBu (473180) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @01:24AM (#15703673) Homepage
        ... pay particular attention to noexec flag -- yes, one can configure his/her generic U**x system not to be able to execute anything off "other media" (including home directories) for what, like, 20 years... ;-)

        Amazing what those guys back then thought of, is not it?

        Paul B.

    • I don't know if they're still sold this way, but firewalls used to be computers that booted off a live CD. This in a way is even more secure than the flash memory used in consumer devices, because presumbaly there's a way to remotely flash these units.

      As other people point out, this is not perfectly secure, because this doesn't prevent the device from loading software remotely and runnint it. However, it does reducee the scope for damage considerably: while you can't prevent data from being lost or corrup

  • What a load of... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bin_jammin (684517) <Binjammin@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 11 2006, @09:54PM (#15703097)
    fun you must be to think up questions like that.

  • Windows Group Policy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ececheira (86172) on Tuesday July 11 2006, @09:56PM (#15703104)
    Windows has long been able to do this via Group Policy. You can specify that only programs signed with specified Authenticode keys can be run, effectively locking the system. Since all OS files are signed by Microsoft and anything a corporation would need could be signed, then if a corporation wanted a locked-down box, then they'd just specify the allowed keys and block everything else.

    It'd be a huge nuisance but it's possible today.
    • Windows fails both the "up-to-scratch" and the "everything you need" tests! But yes, I agree, it can be locked down, as can most other modern OSes (all of which also fail those two critical criteria--I'm not Windows-bashing here).
      • I'm not sure you can say that as far as the corporate world goes. By default, Windows and related programs is everything you need because that is what 90% of corporate enviroments are based on. That is not to say that nothing else is better or has useful features that Windows lacks, but simply that you can easily ahve everything that you need to run a fully sucessful office on a Windows, or even a purely Microsoft box.

  • I'd use it (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Wizarth (785742) on Tuesday July 11 2006, @09:56PM (#15703105) Homepage
    For office use, a linux distro (such as Debian or Ubuntu) which allowed you to specify the repositories, and not allow modification of the list, would work just fine, in general.

    System admin's would only allow updates from the offical repository, with a local repository for mirror/caching and business specific software packages.

    I use something like this for my relatives. Give them a linux, don't give them root, make all updates/installations go through me.

    Then print out a poster for my door "setup.exe will not run on your system" ...
        • "noexec" is completely useless.
          Just do: /lib/ld-linux.so.2 YOUR_PROGRAM
          and you can bypass noexec.
          Not to mention shell scripts, perl etc etc.

          • From man mount (eww):

            noexec Do not allow direct execution of any binaries on the mounted file system. (Until recently it was possible to run binaries anyway using a command like /lib/ld*.so /mnt/binary. This trick fails since Linux 2.4.25 / 2.6.0.)

  • On the subject of the CD Rootkit... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GhaleonStrife (916215) on Tuesday July 11 2006, @09:56PM (#15703106)
    Think about this: If that database included the infamous Sony rootkit as "allowed" due to them laying pressure on whoever maintains it, doesn't it render the whole thing pointless?
    • The whole shitstorm over "Trusted Computing" and this are essentially the same topic, and the issue is who has control over the access control list, the user-administrator or some other party. The feature can be used for good or evil, for lawfulness or chaos, just as with any other tool.
    • Think about this: If that database included the infamous Sony rootkit as "allowed" due to them laying pressure on whoever maintains it, doesn't it render the whole thing pointless?

      So your argument is basicly that because trust can be misplaced, there's no point in having a trust system? Let's remove the classification system because the joint chiefs could be Al-Quaida members. Let's remove all digital signatures because the signing key might have been compromised. The point is who to trust, and also look ou

  • code isolation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheSHAD0W (258774) on Tuesday July 11 2006, @09:56PM (#15703107) Homepage
    This would be "mostly secure", but unless strict data-space separation would use it might still be vulnerable to a buffer overflow or similar attack that would allow arbitrary code provided as data to be executed. The attacker would use this opportunity to establish a "beachhead", modifying whatever integrity-checking system the OS is using to allow it to continue to exist.
    • Obviously there will be some kind of attack, no matter what the system. I think the question is mostly dealing with malware and trojans, stuff that doesn't try to break it, but relies on user stupidity.
      • Speaking as a user who understands their computer reasonably well and doesn't click on stuff just because animated characters tell me to, would this be a good thing?

        If we (hypothetically) closed off the "stupid user" vulnerabilities that are the major attack vectors right now, wouldn't the malware authors instead just concentrate on other, more technical, avenues of attack?

        Here's my thought: maybe having systems vulnerable to idiot users is actually a good thing for the informational ecosystem as a whole. They're more than just the canaries in the coal mine (although they serve that function, too), they provide a steady stream of marks for the virus/trojan/malware writers and phishing-scheme authors of the world.

        If these people weren't able to basically throw themselves on the swords of their own stupidity on a regular basis, couldn't this just lead to smarter malware, which affected more of us (not just the stupid/ignorant)?

        Malware authors are inherently lazy and opportunistic. While there are still lots of "the monkey told me to click it so I did" people around, and ways to exploit this idiocy, that's what they're going to do. They're not going to mess around with esoteric buffer overflows to steal your information, when they can just send out some fake PayPal emails and watch the data roll in.

        Given the choice, I'd rather have the primary attack vectors be ones that rely on user stupidity, rather than technical flaws, because 0-day technical flaws are too 'egalitarian,' attacking both the clueless user and the experienced person without warning. Personally, anything that keeps the collective attention of the Russian Mafia focused on people too dumb to check the URL line in IE before typing in their bank account information is a good thing in my book.

        I know this isn't a very nice sentiment to hold, but if there was some hypothetical way to remove user stupidity as a vulnerability (not possible, so this is all just a mind game), maybe we'd be better off not implementing it?

        I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't attempt to educate people on good computing practices, but if people are too lazy or disinterested to become educated, maybe in their laziness they can do the rest of us a favor by acting as the collective decoys?

  • Question moot. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by The MAZZTer (911996) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <tzzagem>> on Tuesday July 11 2006, @09:59PM (#15703117) Homepage

    "If each program that made up the collection of allowed programs was 'up to scratch' and had 'everything you need',"

    Considering that is impossible, the question is pretty much moot, isn't it. I am always going to find more needs for things, and chances are I'm going to need a new piece of software. Even if an OS shipped with "everything", new things are invented all the time. Maintaining a "Closed OS" to allow for new things would be difficult, and to keep it relatively up to date even more so... but then it wouldn't really be closed if new stuff kept getting added to it...

  • Treacherous Computing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jZnat (793348) * on Tuesday July 11 2006, @10:00PM (#15703119) Homepage Journal
    This is exactly what Microsoft would like to do with Treacherous Computing, although the issue would cover things like security from the user rather than for the user.
    • I hate to say this, but while the idea of security from the user instead of for the user, sounds insane, it's probably very needed and very valid.

      I've done some freelance computer work for people who don't know all the technical stuff about computers. This normally relates to spyware/malware/virii/etc. The grand majority of the spyware and malware is self installed. Downloading cutesy screensavers or cursors or backgrounds that come with all manners of desktop search, search bars. When you have a Athlon

  • Smith-Corona to the rescue! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Onan (25162) on Tuesday July 11 2006, @10:01PM (#15703125)

    Yeah, turns out somebody was doing this for kind of a while. Called them "typewriters" or somesuch.

    Really, much of the value of a computer lies in the fact that it's an extremely versatile device. Choosing to discard all that, and believe that you can know ahead of time every single thing you will ever want to accomplish with it, seems like a pretty bad deal.

    • But there are some people who use a computer for nothing more than word processing, web browsing, and email. A "closed off" setup might work for them.

      • But there are some people who use a computer for nothing more than word processing, web browsing, and email

        anyone remember the I-opener ? that was a closed (qnx) turnkey just-does-this-and-no-more system.

        I don't think the company lasted long, though. too many people (myself included) bought the boxes for $100 and hacked them to get linux and win95 on them. ahh..

        but the idea was kind of ok, for some people. and there was NO way to get viruses or problems when you aren't even running a real multiuser o/s

  • OS X (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mattjb0010 (724744) on Tuesday July 11 2006, @10:01PM (#15703126) Homepage
    already does this. See here [apple.com], under "Application Access: You Decide". You can set up another user account for yourself (not just any children) which would be protected. I'm pretty sure Windows has similar things (not sure if you need 3rd party software to do this) and as mentioned, there are live CDs of Linux/BSD/etc.
  • Isn't this the same exact thinking behind the TCPA planned by Microsoft & Co? Where only "licensed" software would be allowed to run? Doesn't sound like a bright idea to me, in fact it sound pretty scary.

  • Vista + 'DRM' Hardware (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nuxx (10153) on Tuesday July 11 2006, @10:02PM (#15703130) Homepage
    Huh. Imagine that... Something which can be done by having a Microsoft OS set to run only signed binaries while running on top of a 'trusted computing platform'.

    As I've said before, this would be a huge boon to IT departments all over the place. I'd love to be able to lock users to running a signed OS only the apps we specifically approve and sign. This would lock out all unapproved software *and* malware. If the OS is secure enough to keep there from being any ways around this, it'll be ideal.

    Oh, and of course, as long as such trusted computing stuffs can be turned off for users who purchase the hardware and don't wish to use it, it's a win-win all around.
  • If you're going to consider limiting users that much, why not simply disable web access or cd players, usb ports etc? I think ultimately, there are several ways to keep a machine safe from intrusion, but it's a compromise for most of us ... functionality vs security. If you want to tilt towards security, in-house systems, disabling activex controls, java, admin access etc are all effective to a certain degree, but much like your concept, sound extremely limiting. I mean, secretaries don't need any software

  • console? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by minus_273 (174041) <{aaaaa} {at} {SPAM.yahoo.com}> on Tuesday July 11 2006, @10:04PM (#15703136) Journal
    Anyone else think this sounds a lot like the xbox 360? encryption keys and all.
    • If you want what the poster suggest, you'd pretty much have an XBox/PS2/etc with a keyboard.

      One of the many, MANY hazards with this would be having to buy a supported printer, supported network card, etc... as 3rd party software (and there by hardware) is excluded by definition.

      As another poster has mentioned, wouldn't a LiveCD suffice?

  • Just about every office I've worked at so far has a certain number of menial computer jobs that are unique to the job setting. And many of these menial jobs have been passed off to the secretary. And many times I've been asked to come up with a little push-button application, macro, script, batch file, or something, just to make the job easier.

    And as a software developer, there's just no way a completely closed system is going to work for me....
  • Lets see the Commodore PET, Apple II and TRS-80 were pretty \much can't touch this OS without a hammer type computers.
    • Lets see the Commodore PET, Apple II and TRS-80 were pretty \much can't touch this OS without a hammer type computers.

      Oh yeah? After booting Apple DOS 3.3 type the following at the AppleSoft BASIC prompt:

      POKE 47616, 96
      Now you can't read or write to a disk. Now that's malware!

      Free karma if you can name what routine I disabled.

  • I don't quite get the point... If all apps have to be signed before install, then you have a point of attack. Intercept communications, fake checksums, attack the OS providers server, ... wouldn't be much more secure than anything else.

    Wouldn't it make more sense to go back to the live cd concept... You pick everything you need and then make a bootable cd out of that. We did that 10 years ago - was a lot of work but worked great. I'm sure over the years people have written better scripts than the hacks we d
  • You mean like a Mac?
  • ....limit a machine to only outgoing traffic? That would let you use an office suite and send (but not receive) email.

    Downside: you'd have to use a CD or flash drive to transfer documents on/off the machine. You couldn't receive email on the machine.

    Upside: The only security risk would be by direct access.

    Actually, the most secure machines probably aren't even password-protected. If the machine isn't attached to anything but a power cord, and the machine itself is inaccessible, then

  • as a software developer... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Xtifr (1323) on Tuesday July 11 2006, @10:21PM (#15703192) Homepage
    ...I would have to say no. At least not by itself. It's pretty hard to develop software if you can't install and test the software you're developing somewhere! ;)

    As a component of a larger, networked system, which had parts where I could install and run the software I was developing, then yes, no problem. But alone, by itself, no, it would be completely useless.

    Of course, there's still some interesting questions about this theoretical beast. Is it scriptable? I often have quick one-off tasks that are best done with a quick script. If I can't run one-off scripts, then it's not "up-to-scratch" and doesn't have "everything I need", and if it can, then it's not a completely closed, locked-down system. The only way around that, even in theory, is to have an infinite number of monkeys providing you with all the scripts you could ever need in advance, and even then, there's probably be some difficulty finding the script you need right now from that infinite number of scripts. (Not to mention the costs of the infinibyte drives needed to store all those scripts.)

    Bottom line, I think the notion of a machine that does "everything I need" is about as realistic as those old concepts of an irresistable force or an immovable object. Nice for creating logical paradoxes, but completely silly otherwise.
  • Its a good idea, only it already exists. Kinda.

    Take any Windows Linux or OSX system, and lock it down till its just a kiosk.

    There you go!

    This is also doable with a windows98 installation onto a CD. Knoppix comes to mind for Linux. I've also tried setting up a kiosk like graphic OS to go onto a compactflash card that acts as an IDE device. I needed newer apps too many times on it.

    See, a FIXED OS needs to be configured seperately for each system since noones requirement is the same as anothers'. QNX, Windows
  • You know, all the products in the supermarket are really distracting. What I crave, as a product of modern USian culture and educational systems, is less choice. Why should I have to decide what to do? Surely someone could pick all the useful things for me. Maybe there could be some kind of vote, where we could all just agree to use what everyone thought was best. That would be a perfect world, with no cutthroat competition or need to worry about the future. Shouldn't I be free from worry and uncertai
  • more of a diskless system.

    You would have the OS installed on a flash memory drive. Either its in the system ( embedded like ) or its a plugin card like sd stick. Read only though. You have memory that you can use as program running space. You can save data to external system like flash drive.

    Lastly, you would run applications from a second flash drive.

    Think of a linux on cd kind of system ( or other os 0 with no hard drive, and you save your data on a flash drive. All programs are on the cd. You ca

  • *groan* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Tuesday July 11 2006, @10:53PM (#15703280)
    ...it could be highly useful for example in the corporate setting...


    Oh, for fuck's sake! Don't give them any more ideas.

    The extra cost of technology staff and the risk of a shittastrophe are nothing compared to abysmal employee morale. If you don't let 'em stroke off for a few minutes a couple of times an hour by going to ebay or playing snood you're going to end up with a resentful staff. And they'll produce awful, crappy work for you.
    • Access to the internet is NOT an entitlement at work.

      At least not wher I live. Do you have internet terminals for employess at the gas station ?

      Are the guys at the foundry revolting because they can't browse eBay while waiting for the steel to cool ?

      Soft in the belly workers need to wise up.

  • Not on my PC (Score:3, Insightful)

    by egarland (120202) on Tuesday July 11 2006, @11:32PM (#15703386)
    I have no problems with this setup if the computer is my Cell Phone. My PDA could be setup to only run signed apps, that wouldn't bother me much. But my PC isn't really a PC without the ability to accomplish arbitrary tasks.

    The concept is also flawed. Just because something isn't an executable doesn't make it not contain instructions that tell your computer to do something. Word macro viruses is a great example of this kind of problem. It's just a simple word processing document.. but it can also be a virus. The .mp3 and .jpg buffer overrun bugs are great examples of this too. A format that doesn't even include programability can be used to induce your computer to do something against your will.

    This is not the answer to computer security.

  • Symbian OS 9.1 for cell phones. (Score:3, Informative)

    by S3D (745318) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @12:32AM (#15703552)
    Symbian OS form v9.1 is very close to be "Closed OS" (pan intended). If application use any "capability"(for example camera API) - any but most basic functions, it should be signed - endorsed by "test house", which have license from Symbian itself. Third party applications still possible, but only from certified developers. So if Symbian v9.1 will be any success there will probably be more closed OS in future.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.