Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(March 1996)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: DOS based firewalls
From: "Andrew V. Stesin" <stesin @ elvisti . kiev . ua>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 03:18:15 +0200 (EET)
To: PADGETT @ hobbes . orl . mmc . com (A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security)
Cc: firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <960323174115 . 2021227d @ hobbes . orl . mmc . com> from "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" at Mar 23, 96 05:41:15 pm

Dear Padgett,

once you said:
# If a security program masks out/removes DOS entirely by taking over all
# of the interrupts and communicates with ROM BIOS & hardware (port calls)
# only, it can be made pretty secure.

	Can anyone (you?) see any difference between such a "program"
	and a standard unix (or OS/2, or even NT) kernel?

	What? It will do sheduling in it's own great ;) manner,
	it will call "process" by some other name (something
	what KA9Q or mswindows does)? So what?
	You simply loose modularity (structural clearance) and memory protection
	(so called "real mode" in mind -- you buy a nice 32bit
	CPU, throw away flat addressing and virtual memory
	abilities and a half of register space, say -- half of CPU's price;
	and hey! now you can start creation of a New Custom Network OS, for
	heavy loaded connections, from very scratch). Ok, maybe that's really
	a nice idea.  But what are the benefits?

	Or will it be a monolitic program, with a complex interface
	between it's modules (and it's own fresh bugs both in modules
	and in their interactions)?
	Oh no, I'd better take a BSD kernel (known and tested for
	many years by many really knowlegeable persons) and
	attach some processes on top of it
	(each in it's own address space, with well-defined IPC, well tested
	too).  Seems to be a better approach. That's what I am doing
	now, and learning all that fancy TCP/IP tips and hints
	and reading docos takes all time, together with cosmetic
	customizations of the software being used.  Go get a headache:
	"How to do this all in dos from scratch?" -- thanks, not for me.
	Why bother porting BSD TCP/IP stack to dos if I can take FreeBSD
	itself _now_ on the same hardware?

	Being honest, I must notice, that PC version of Plan9 from Bell
	Labs uses dos as a loader, than blows it away (of course).
	But other real OSes are already using much smaller and way less complex
	loaders, less complexity _is_ an incredible security win! ;)
	And no dossiche virii will eat your boot record, never.

	(Sorry, the topic is dead, I think; but couldn't resist :-)

-- 

	With best regards -- Andrew Stesin.

	+380 (44) 2760188	+380 (44) 2713457	+380 (44) 2713560

	"You may delegate authority, but not responsibility."
					Frank's Management Rule #1.


References:
  • re: DOS based firewalls
    From: "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" <PADGETT @ hobbes . orl . mmc . com>
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Firewall organizational opinions?
From: "Paul M. Cardon" <pmarc @ fnbc . com>
Next: Re: Sick Puppy
From: Julian Assange <proff @ suburbia . net>
Indexed By Thread Previous: re: DOS based firewalls
From: "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" <PADGETT @ hobbes . orl . mmc . com>
Next: Authenticating application gateway
From: Christian ALT <calt @ tla . ch>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com