Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Operating Systems Security Privacy Software News Linux Technology

Antivirus Firm Kaspersky Launches Its Own Hackproof OS, Based On Microkernel (fossbytes.com) 108

Posted by BeauHD from the nothing-but-the-basics dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Antivirus Firm Kaspersky Launches Its Own Hackproof OS, Based On Microkernel More

Antivirus Firm Kaspersky Launches Its Own Hackproof OS, Based On Microkernel

Comments Filter:

  • Reports of it being hacked in 5...4...3... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Moheeheeko ( 1682914 ) on Friday November 18, 2016 @04:42PM (#53318155)
    Nothing is Hackproof, the internet always finds a way.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "Reports of it being hacked in 5...4...3..." (Score:2), 1st post.

      Well played sir

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by The-Ixian ( 168184 )

      Reports of MS claiming patent infringement of the kernel in 5....4...3...

    • Granted, but I think that Kaspersky knows what to look for in designing a secure OS.
      I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt that they've done a solid job building an embedded OS.

      That said, source would be nice to see...
      -nB

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      Reminds me of this one:

      Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald Knuth

    • Take Denuvo for example, when the first videogame using this technology was hacked most people thought "game over", but aside from some exceptions, Denuvo is still winning the crack battle.

      Hacking an OS is "easier" in the sense that there are lots of more entries for a hacker to jump into, so let's see what happens. Of course if no one uses the OS, it will be harder as there is no interest.

    • The original post from Kapersky doensn't make the unhackable claim.

      Then again, it doesn't miss the mark by much...

      . I also hope itâ(TM)s clear that itâ(TM)s better â" no matter how difficult â" to build IoT/infrastructure devices from the very beginning in such a way that hacking them is practically impossible

  • How is it licensed? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by subk ( 551165 ) on Friday November 18, 2016 @04:44PM (#53318171)
    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?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by PRMan ( 959735 )
      Works for Microsoft...

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      People say that, but I wonder, have you actually pored over every line of code in Linux/BSD/Whatever and their application ecosystems, and do you actually have the competency to determine how secure it is? Shellshock was in the Bash source code for 25 years, can you trust open source to be secure?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by amiga3D ( 567632 )

        Maybe no one has poured over every line of code in the Linux kernel but then you don't know that either. For sure it can be looked at. This new OS can't be looked at. I guess it depends on your level of trust. I'd bet any amount of money that it'll be backdoored. You know it'll have bugs.

  • OpenBSD is secure, correct, microkernel-based and doesn't contain any parts of Linux. What is essentially different?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      OpenBSD is secure, correct, microkernel-based and doesn't contain any parts of Linux. What is essentially different?

      Uhh, no. OpenBSD is monolithic instead of microkernel, and may contain Linux parts, at least in the userland.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Same shit. Different asshole.

    • OpenBSD is secure, correct, microkernel-based

      OpenBSD is not microkernel based.

      Microkernel based: Mach, Hurd, QNX

      NOT microkernel based: Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD

      Sort of microkernelish in some ways, but not really: Mac OS

      • OpenBSD is not microkernel based.

        I stand corrected.

      • Minix (Score:2)

        by farrellj ( 563 )

        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....

  • 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.

  • Guys! (Score:5, Funny)

    by The-Ixian ( 168184 ) on Friday November 18, 2016 @05:00PM (#53318313)

    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....

  • QNX just called. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18, 2016 @05:14PM (#53318429)

    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.

    • Re:QNX just called. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18, 2016 @05:21PM (#53318489)

      But this comes with a free trial of their anti-virus software.

    • There is already an OS which is all of those things.

      Sounds good! I have a shiny new 64-bit CPU and I would like to run this QNX on it please!

      Oh, really? Never mind, then.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by WPsim ( 170565 )
      You're right about such an OS to exist already, you merely got its name wrong. It is called seL4 [sel4.systems].

      (Disclaimer: I had my fingers in that pie.)

    • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by amiga3D ( 567632 )

      Hell, Minix is open source.

  • Does this guy know what a microkernel is? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kamakazi ( 74641 ) on Friday November 18, 2016 @05:30PM (#53318557)

    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... [kaspersky.com]
    instead of re-aggregating an poorly written per-aggregated mention of the news?

    • Just when an article has the world "unhackable" in it, that's the warning sign right there that it's not serious.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        More that everything is in its place and tracked, signed. Any unexpected changes get noticed and reported. Kind of what third party OS level tracking software can do on OS X, Linux or Windows.
        Software can track any app that wants to be persistently installed. When any new persistent component is added the user is alerted.
        Other ways are to look at a tasks signature, dylibs, signing, network use and file access in OS X for example.
        A more traditional OS might trust the user more and have much less feedba

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I know, my first thought on reading that sentence was "that's not even SLIGHTLY what microkernel architecture means!"

  • Would remind you that hack-proof OS is asking for trouble just as much as "unsinkable ship"

    • Nowadays the kids just say, "CHALLENGE ACCEPTED".

  • It's really just Mac OS 8.6 [wikipedia.org] and some abstraction layers...

  • Russia and trusted OS goes tougher like vodka and cookies.
  • 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.

  • .. 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.

  • Yet Another Minix (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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. :-)

  • "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

  • in 3-2-1...

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close