>I see, so you're supposing there isn't an exploit? How do you "prove a negative"?
I didn't say there wasn't an exploit. I'm not sure where you got that - I actually pointed out that similar exploits have been found in the past and patched.* All I was pointing out was your incorrect assumption that once someone got into the guest, that they would then be free to run rampant over the host and do as they please. There is in fact no proof at all that that is the case. In the final analysis, for the type of user who would employ Leaf in a virtualized environment, the security it provides - doing the job it was designed to do - should be "good enough." I think this type of environment is far more susceptible to user-enabled attack vectors (ie. Spyware, viruses, etc.) than an extremely skilled hacker uncovering a currently unknown flaw in VWMare, on top of breaking into a Leaf system. >I ran a commercial IBM VM/SP system on a mainframe in the mid-80's. But even VM, with a history that ran back to 1967, had a "rubber room" project at Share for the university student environment. There were STILL security & management issues 20 years later. And there will be security and management issues 20 years from now. It's the nature of the beast. - Bob Coffman *For example, http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/glsa/glsa-200711-23.xml ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/
