| 1 |
Everything that is interesting for the boss is interesting for us (except |
| 2 |
the "howto torture university students mechanisms teaching them microkernel |
| 3 |
based OS" :P). |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Which is not of interest is asking about opinions of closed source |
| 6 |
microkernel based OS and the opinions of Theo de Raadt about if accessing |
| 7 |
the RAM memory where his passwords reside by not get cleaned are security |
| 8 |
relevant or not, since he is not a referency about security questions (well |
| 9 |
he is the only one to say that MAC and memory not cleaned/overwritten |
| 10 |
readings are not security relevant). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I will not start other discussion with you, but please stop acting as a |
| 13 |
troll. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
2012/1/26 Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@××××××××.uk> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:55:02 -0500 |
| 18 |
> "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> > Oh dear god, Minix! While I respect what Tanenbaum is up to with Minix |
| 21 |
> > and I hope he keeps developing it, the current situation is that it has |
| 22 |
> > a very tiny base and it will probably stay that way. I loved the |
| 23 |
> > original Minix for teaching (although I've moved on to James Molloy's |
| 24 |
> > kernel), but usability is inversely proportional to complexity. If |
| 25 |
> > Minix were to span the usability spectrum of a kernel like Linux or BSD, |
| 26 |
> > I've got a gut feeling it would hit many of the same insecurity issues |
| 27 |
> > despite the theory of separation of subsystems. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Me and my brother won a playbook, out of interest, what do you think of |
| 30 |
> QNX? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
Archives