Is google sabotaging browsers?
in [General Linux]
|
From: notbob on 7 Mar 2010 02:13 On 2010-03-07, Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote: > "Unfortunately, existing mainstream operating systems lack the critical > security feature required for enforcing separation: mandatory access > control. As a consequence, application security mechanisms are > vulnerable to tampering and bypass, and malicious or flawed applications > can easily cause failures in system security." OK. Sounds like PAM, to me. Again, if this is open source, why is this a bad thing? Maybe I misunderstand. I get the impression that Grant is saying selinux is guilty of, what? ....making ppl more paranoid? Shouldn't they be? Or is he saying selinux is unnecessarily alarmist. What's the bottom line? Selinux is more secure or not? nb
From: Loki Harfagr on 7 Mar 2010 05:56 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:30:32 -0500, TJ did cat : > On 03/06/2010 08:02 PM, notbob wrote: >> On 2010-03-06, TJ<TJ(a)noneofyour.business> wrote: >>> On 03/06/2010 04:10 PM, notbob wrote: >>>> Who knows what >>>> google is capable of? >>>> >>>> >>> Hey, if you can't trust a company whose corporate motto used to be >>> "Don't be Evil," who can you trust? >> >> >> >> RLZ identifier: >> >> Info sent: >> Encoded string, according to Google, contains non-identifying >> information used for statistics. Although there is no way to confirm >> this. >> >> When: >> # On Google search query >> # Every 24 hours >> # On installation and other significant events >> >> Optional: >> No >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome >> >> You can can trust 'em if you like. I don't. >> >> nb > > Okey-dokey. And next time I'll be sure to insert a notice in large > capital letters when I'm not being serious. Note that I added one to your post as soon as I previewed what was going to happen ,-) > That way, maybe you'll know > - but I wouldn't want to bet on it. exactly, my caps post was not enough, gotta think something more flashy next time ;D)
From: Loki Harfagr on 7 Mar 2010 06:07 Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:13:46 +0000, notbob did cat : > On 2010-03-07, Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> > wrote: > > >> "Unfortunately, existing mainstream operating systems lack the critical >> security feature required for enforcing separation: mandatory access >> control. As a consequence, application security mechanisms are >> vulnerable to tampering and bypass, and malicious or flawed >> applications can easily cause failures in system security." > > OK. > > Sounds like PAM, to me. Again, if this is open source, why is this a > bad thing? > > Maybe I misunderstand. I get the impression that Grant is saying > selinux is guilty of, what? not at all, and anyway that's a choice. > ....making ppl more paranoid? Shouldn't > they be? SELinux doesn't make people more paranoid, it makes the kernel (and toolbox) more paranoid so the admins can relax a bit when they manage a server (or a group) in a domain where high security and rights separations are required. That's not exactly a 'user desktop' habit and the extra hassle brought by the usage of SE is probably a no-no for personal use. > Or is he saying selinux is unnecessarily alarmist. Not at all, he's saying that SE is alarmist, you added the idea of 'unnecessary', that's only a choice. > What's > the bottom line? Selinux is more secure or not? In a way, though I'd consider that if used with people that don't accept the SE idea it is flwaed by the fact that they'll struggle against it and either will become useless and/or finally would introduce weak points. So don't use paranoid tools if you're not in an already paranoid environment :-)
From: TJ on 7 Mar 2010 09:30 On 03/06/2010 08:02 PM, notbob wrote: > On 2010-03-06, TJ<TJ(a)noneofyour.business> wrote: >> On 03/06/2010 04:10 PM, notbob wrote: >>> Who knows what >>> google is capable of? >>> >> >> Hey, if you can't trust a company whose corporate motto used to be >> "Don't be Evil," who can you trust? > > > > RLZ identifier: > > Info sent: > Encoded string, according to Google, contains non-identifying > information used for statistics. Although there is no way to confirm > this. > > When: > # On Google search query > # Every 24 hours > # On installation and other significant events > > Optional: > No > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome > > You can can trust 'em if you like. I don't. > > nb BEING SERIOUS IN THIS POST: Notbob, you can't trust Wikipedia, either. Anybody can change anything there, at any time. Supposedly, it's self-policing, because those who know the truth come along and make corrections. Nice idea, but it has a basic flaw. Suppose somebody posts mis-information about a subject. It doesn't have to be a lie - but it could be. It may be corrected almost immediately - or it could languish for weeks before somebody finds the error. Now suppose you access that information during the time the error is there. Would you know the difference? Probably not. And then you'd go somewhere and cite that information, not knowing that it is false. With Wikipedia, you just don't know. It's a good place to start some research, but anything, and I do mean ANYTHING you see there needs to be confirmed from independent sources before you accept it as true. TJ -- 90 per cent of everything is crud. - Theodore Sturgeon
From: Michael Black on 7 Mar 2010 10:09
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2010-03-07, Michael Black <et472(a)ncf.ca> wrote: > >> You need to get the NSA patch for the kernel, which is guaranteed to >> make your system free of paranoia. > > Are you kidding? The NSA may not have invented paranoia, but they've > put a lot of work into perfecting it. The NSA's kernel patches > intentionally _add_ paranoia to your kernel. A lot of it. That's the > whole point: > > http://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/index.shtml > Yes, I was kidding. It was Sidney I was replying to, after all. The "NSA Patch" as I envision it is something people would use to patch their kernel, believing it made things safer because it came from the NSA. In reality, it's a trojan horse, allowing the NSA to get control of your computer. I never said "Selinux". Michael |