"Whether it's the NSA exploiting weaknesses in encryption software, the holes in Tor making it less anonymous, or the major problems with Tails - vulnerabilities are constantly testing the security and anonymity of computer users.
But little known Montreal-based developers at Subgraph want to change all that, and have started working on a zero-day resistant Operating System (OS), protecting against infiltration.
Subgraph takes the approach that overall computer security is critical to anonymity, targeting protection against zero-day vulnerabilities, the types of weakness unknown to the developers while they're writing software."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Canadian Developers Making the Next Tails Privacy Software
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 4 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday August 03 2014, @03:39PM
...just don't tell Harper.... that would be bad, m'kay! That would be bad...
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday August 03 2014, @08:25PM
Harper's not interested.
He hasn't lifted a finger against Openbsd, probably the most secure off the shelf OS you can find.
In fact, Subgraph's use of a linux kernel, (even a security enhanced Linux kernel), says to me they are starting from behind the 8-ball. (Not sure I'd trust that supposedly mathematically proven kernel from one of the largest US contractors - General Dynamics either).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @02:06AM
the os is irrelevant.
most systems are compromised at the hardware and network levels.
the only safe firewall these days is a bomb shelter (no signal).
not much choice in the public sector for secure hardware either.
(Score: 1) by dueckuwanga on Wednesday August 06 2014, @06:51PM
Are you trying to engender a sense of indifference to Internet security and privacy? Instead, I would advocate people either trust someone with [some of] their security measures, or get involved to some degree. Like getting involved in your car - some people can't be bothered to learn how to change their wiper blades, so is it pointless to get into that at all because, let's face it, they'll never be a master mechanic so why bother doing anything at all? Advocating a need for 100%-security (ultimate peace of mind that is a holy grail for paranoiacs) is also unbalanced.
Users really implement their own security, opting to implement measures based on the effort involved and their motivation and aptitude. Each degree of data/process control, isolation, certainty that a user implements raises the threshold to, say, intercept, validate, database, and use that data against the user. "Against" here is nuanced too - from stolen identities to politically motivated harassment.
Leave yourself more vulnerable at your increased risk; go down the Internet security rabbit hole to the depth your tether allows you (warning not to obsess).
Gnome sane?