Put it this way: if you break the i386 architecture, by all
means, publish it. Meanwhile, I’ll believe in its designers.
Now, years ago, when the industry “grew the other way”, we
didn’t have the security problems we had today, hence, the
solutions we have today were not quite designed with our
contemporary needs as a target. Rings work - there’s no such a
thing as a better OS than Multics, even in this day and age. And
if I zero in on a simple-minded architecture, I’ll get what I
pay for: after all, nobody drives to work and back home on a
Formula One car, and you drive your Harley into a Noreaster at
your own risk.
But hey, it’s easier to keep adding bells and whistles to our
old shoe, no ? Makes us feel warm and fuzzy. Meanwhile,
innovation be damned. No wonder outsourcing is so popular, the
stuff’s so old that everyone now knows it inside out.
Alberto.
“Don Burn” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@hormel4.ieee.org…
> I’m sitting here chuckling at this mini-thread. It is really
> funny to hear
> people keep suggesting rings are the answer. It is
> interesting that 25
> years ago, I was getting a class at work from a number of MIT
> professors who
> had worked on Multics. Their number one message was “Rings
> are not the
> answer!”
> The people who had designed them (HW and SW) found it to be a
> mistake, but
> we still have this mystical belief that everything will be
> great with rings.
>
> On seperate code and data space, I worked on a system
> (Sequoia’s fault
> tolerant computers) that did exactly that. The problem is the
> industry grew
> up the other way, getting the world to change is not going to
> be nice. It
> isn’t the code seperation that is the problem, it is little
> things like the
> assumptions of tools and compilers that code and constant data
> live in the
> same space. One compiler vendor for Sequoia took the easy way
> out, the
> created a program image TWICE! once for the data area and once
> for the code
> segment!
>
>
> –
> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
> Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> Remove StopSpam from the email to reply
>
>
>
> “Prokash Sinha” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> Well this four ring has been around for quite sometime, but
>> two of the
>> household names (windows, linux) both are 0,3 based. So there
>> must be some
>> design issue(s), well I’m the least qualified, so I dont know
>> what …
>>
>> But very very interested to know if there were/are any effort
>> along that
>> direction. I REALLY HOPE SOMEDAY NATIVE VM comes, hell with
>> all the kludgy
>> security feature !!!
>>
>> -pro
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: “Alberto Moreira”
>> To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 6:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re:[ntdev] Converting MDL from NonPagedPool to
>> Locked?
>>
>>
>>> Actually, if code and data didn’t share the same physical
>>> memory, a great
>>> stride forward would have been taken as far as security is
>>> concerned. It
>>> bothers me immensely that Intel put such an enormous amount
>>> of
>>> security-oriented functionality into the i386 architecture,
>>> and, well,
>>> nobody uses any of it. Consider: if a buffer overflow is
>>> just that, a
>>> buffer overflow, and it is impossible to realize a set of
>>> instructions
>>> out of it because that’s not the code segment nor is it
>>> aliased to a code
>>> segment, it can be pretty hard to insert anything through a
>>> back door.
>>> So, the way I think it should be is, trusted code in Ring 0,
>>> I/O in Ring
>>> 1 (no, dudes, I/O is not trusted code nor should it be
>>> treated as
>>> such), Services in Ring 2 and Applications in Ring 3. But
>>> no, Risc is
>>> better, no ? Heck, one gets what one pays for.
>>>
>>> Alberto.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: “Maxim S. Shatskih”
>>> To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
>>>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 7:05 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Re:[ntdev] Converting MDL from NonPagedPool to
>>> Locked?
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Actually, the hacks, err hooks, can be implemented as
>>>>> error-free as the
>>>>> best drivers can, considering how often quality drivers
>>>>> suffer from
>>>>> flaws
>>>>> like the recent article on the try/except handler bug.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> They are even theoretically not free from interop issues.
>>>> The usual
>>>> driver
>>>> writing techniques - are free.
>>>>
>>>>> There are good security products available that do hack
>>>>> the kernel
>>>>> safely,
>>>>> but they are outnumbered by rootkits, spyware, keyloggers
>>>>> and other
>>>>> garbage
>>>>> that hack and mangle the kernel. The risk of creating an
>>>>> unstable
>>>>> platform
>>>>> is clearly tilted towards the dark side.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> Any malware is spreaded due to a) OS and app bugs b) user
>>>> stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> As about bugs - for now, they are usually first noticed by
>>>> the “good
>>>> guys” who
>>>> report them to the vendor. Then the vendor issues a patch,
>>>> and only
>>>> after this
>>>> the virii start to spreat. So it was with MSBlaster.
>>>>
>>>> So - keep your OS and software patched.
>>>>
>>>> As about user stupidity - educate yourself.
>>>>
>>>> If both of these items are fulfilled - then there is no
>>>> need at all in
>>>> any
>>>> hook-based security software.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, lots of professional people never caught a
>>>> virus for
>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>> Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
>>>> StorageCraft Corporation
>>>> xxxxx@storagecraft.com
>>>> http://www.storagecraft.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> —
>>>> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
>>>> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>>>>
>>>> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@ieee.org
>>>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>>>> xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>>>
>>>
>>> —
>>> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
>>> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>>>
>>> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@garlic.com
>>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>>> xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@ieee.org
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> xxxxx@lists.osr.com