On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 07:39:57PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:As always, it depends on your environment. There are people who are using Linux systems where trusting the network makes sense. For example, if you're on a battleship, say, or all of the machines are in a cluster which is inside a Tempest-shielded machine room with a massive combination lock that you might find on a bank vault, or if you're environment where network cables are protected by pressurized pipes (so any attempt to tamper with or tap the cables causes a pressure drop which sets off the alarm which summons the Marines armed with M-16's...). (I've been inside classified machine rooms, which is why my laptop has the 'Unclassified' label on it; it's needed so people can easily eyeball it and know that I'm not allowed to connect it to any of the classified networks. And those are just the less serious machine rooms. In the really serious classified areas with the bank vault-like doors, and the copper-tinted windows, I'm not allowed to bring in an unclassified laptop at all --- and yes, Linux is being used in such environments. And yes, they do sometimes use IPSO and/or CIPSO.) There are different kinds of security. Not all of them involve cryptography and IPSEC. Some of them involve armed soldiers and air gap firewalls. :-) Yes, normally the network is outside the Trusted Computing Base (TCB), but a cluster of Linux machines in a rack is roughly the same size of a huge Unix server tens year ago --- and it's not like Ethernet is any more secure than the PCI bus. So why do we consider communications across a PCI bus secure even though they aren't encrypted? Why, because normally we assume the PCI bus is inside the trust boundary, and so we don't worry about bad guys tapping communications between the CPU and the hard drive on the PCI bus. But these days, it is obviously possible to create clusters where certain network interfaces are only connected to machines contained completely inside the trust boundary, just like a PCI bus in a traditional server. So don't be so quick to dismiss something like CIPSO out of hand, just because it doesn't use IPSEC. Regards, - Ted -
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Roland Dreier | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
git: | |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Paul E. McKenney | Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 |
