On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 8:38:38 PM UTC-4, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
> On 10/20/2016 05:12 PM, pleom...@gmail.com wrote:
> > @Jeremy Rand
> >
> > realy sorry about that,i didnt think that someone get some emails.
>
> THOUSANDS of us get "some emails" from you.
>
> > But this thing of
On 10/20/2016 05:12 PM, pleom...@gmail.com wrote:
> @Jeremy Rand
>
> realy sorry about that,i didnt think that someone get some emails.
THOUSANDS of us get "some emails" from you.
> But this thing of system security is important.
>
The fact that security — which you do not seem to understand
pleom...@gmail.com:
> or the worst thing if hacker cant do this he can try to compromize
> sys-firewall in the same way as sysnet bcs its the same topology.And after
> compromizing sys-firewall then can do whatever he like.
>
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Anyway it should be
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 9:17:14 PM UTC-4, johny...@sigaint.org wrote:
> > Andrew:
> > This kind of security-first posture is what has made Qubes famous.
>
> I agree that Qubes separation is probably the most secure basis for a
> reasonably usable PC-based platform today. It's all I'll
On 10/16/2016 12:16 AM, pleom...@gmail.com wrote:
> look guys if someone compromize sys-net then go route trafic by fake dns and
> sites.You paste your credit card or something and all data goes to the hacker.
If someone compromises the network card of your AppArmor-enabled Ubuntu
instance, the
> Andrew:
> This kind of security-first posture is what has made Qubes famous.
I agree that Qubes separation is probably the most secure basis for a
reasonably usable PC-based platform today. It's all I'll use. (I worry
about 4.0 not working on my hardware, tho. And upgrading hardware brings
pleom...@gmail.com:
> But look every vms in qubes base on the same,so if someone compromize sys-net
> VM then it should not be so hard to compromize other VMs.
>
It would compromise sys-net. Any writes to the template-based volume
(with /bin, /usr, /var, etc.) are discarded upon VM reboot.
Andrew:
> pleom...@gmail.com:
>> If there is no user acces control like a real root real user then its no
>> sense to use it.
>>
>
> I think you've missed something pretty fundamental.
>
> Throw out everything you know about the Linux kernel and how it enforces
> security (including MAC).
pleom...@gmail.com:
> If there is no user acces control like a real root real user then its no
> sense to use it.
>
I think you've missed something pretty fundamental.
Throw out everything you know about the Linux kernel and how it enforces
security (including MAC). Qubes takes the position
On 10/15/2016 01:04 PM, pleom...@gmail.com wrote:
> you never break armored ubuntu,this is fact... dont try be einstein to know
> some way to do this.No way.
>
This e-mail in particular has caused me to burst into uncontrollable
laughter.
--
Rudd-O
http://rudd-o.com/
--
You received
10 matches
Mail list logo
