[LINK] Operating systems can't be secure, says Kaspersky

Stilgherrian stil at stilgherrian.com
Sun Oct 19 11:19:34 EST 2008

On 19/10/2008, at 10:05 AM, David Boxall wrote:
> We'll all be rooned:
> <http://www.securecomputing.net.au/News/125819,operating-systems-cant-be-secure-says-kaspersky.aspx 
> >
>> *Operating systems are inherently insecure and will remain that way  
>> in
>> the future, according to Eugene Kaspersky...*
>> According to Kaspersky, a secure operating system has a limited set  
>> of
>> applications and services that it allows. However, because of that,
>> secure operating systems can lose their market and audience.
> ...
>> "In the future I don’t think we will see any secure operating
>> systems," he said.

"Secure" has so many different meanings in different context that it's  
essentially meaningless. Also, in individual component like "an  
operating system" isn't secure or not, it's the entire architecture,  
structure and process which is or is not "secure". As an example, it  
doesn't matter if the OS is "secure" if there's a cheap lock on the  
door and someone can just break in and steal the computer. Or if staff  
are poorly trained and fall for a social engineering attack.

All that said, this seems remarkably similar to Ivan Krstic's message  
from last year:


Stilgherrian http://stilgherrian.com/
Internet, IT and Media Consulting, Sydney, Australia
mobile +61 407 623 600
fax +61 2 9516 5630
Twitter: stilgherrian
Skype: stilgherrian
ABN 25 231 641 421

More information about the Link mailing list