Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 13:08:22 +0100 From: Zenny <garbytrash@...il.com> To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: virtualization in openwall Thanks Daniel for reply. Some of my curiosity is below. On 1/3/13, Daniel Cegiełka <daniel.cegielka@...il.com> wrote: > 2013/1/3 Zenny <garbytrash@...il.com>: >> Zdrasdsviche! >> >> Belated happy new year 2013 to all Owl team! >> >> BTW, I would like to know whether anyone has experience with >> virtualization like xen or kvm with xen in Owl? > > KVM is a bad choice - another user-space issue. Thats why the qubes > developers decided to use xen (see qubes doc's). > I read about qubes docs, but still not convinced why so much of virtualization layer is required for the server? > >> The reason I am asking is because a Polish distro Qubes-OS claims it >> is secured. And I could not find anything more secured than Owl. If >> xen or kvm with qemu be integrated to Owl, how will it scale in terms >> of performance and security? >> >> Any inputs would be appreciated! Spacibo bolshoi! > > Qubes is a system for the desktop - Owl for servers. Just a simple firewall is enough for desktop, isn't it? Why so many separation of layers for desktop? Or simply go with liberté linux for both security and anonymity on desktop, why bother? That is the question I have had in mind. However, xen can also be deployed in server environments for full virtualization of different OSes, isn't it? > You can't easily > transfer qubes functions (eg copying etc.) to Owl... but J. Rutkowska > and Wojtczuk approach is very interesting. Sounds interesting, but not useful if that is for desktop. I am just interested to know whether deploying a model like qubes to Owl installation is anything tried or useful for servers? > > Daniel > >> >> /zenny >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.