Talk:COMP 3000 Essay 2 2010 Question 2 - Revision history

Gsmith6: /* Comments & Discussion */

2010-12-03T05:57:37Z

Comments & Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:57, 3 December 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=Comments & Discussion=		=Comments & Discussion=

			alrighty then.... I'm done for the night, I've just gone through it and it seems to flow nicely, and I made a few minor corrections here and there. I did have to make a major edit where I wrote all of the security invariants out and failed to notice that Youcef had done a similar thing just below it. Oh well.... It's fixed now. Night everyone
			--[[User:Gsmith6\|Gsmith6]] 05:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

	I've added a few paragraphs in the background and the contribution sections including their references. Feel free to edit or add to them		I've added a few paragraphs in the background and the contribution sections including their references. Feel free to edit or add to them

Ymoussou: /* Comments & Discussion */

2010-12-03T04:05:38Z

Comments & Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:05, 3 December 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=Comments & Discussion=		=Comments & Discussion=

			I've added a few paragraphs in the background and the contribution sections including their references. Feel free to edit or add to them
			--[[User:Ymoussou\|Youcef M.]] 04:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


	Don't forget your references guys!		Don't forget your references guys!

Ymoussou: /* Comments & Discussion */

2010-12-03T00:30:13Z

Comments & Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:30, 3 December 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=Comments & Discussion=		=Comments & Discussion=

			Don't forget your references guys!
			--[[User:Ymoussou\|Youcef M.]] 00:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


	I'm adding bits and pieces here and there in most of the sections including references.		I'm adding bits and pieces here and there in most of the sections including references.

Atubman: spelling

2010-12-02T22:12:18Z

spelling

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:12, 2 December 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:


	--Writing up a ~~critic~~ of the researches ~~evalution~~ methods for the ~~critic~~ section now		--Writing up a critique of the researches evaluation methods for the critique section now

	[[User:Atubman\|Atubman]] 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)		[[User:Atubman\|Atubman]] 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ymoussou: /* Comments & Discussion */

2010-12-02T22:01:14Z

Comments & Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:01, 2 December 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=Comments & Discussion=		=Comments & Discussion=

			I'm adding bits and pieces here and there in most of the sections including references.

			--[[User:Ymoussou\|Youcef M.]] 22:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


	--Writing up a critic of the researches evalution methods for the critic section now		--Writing up a critic of the researches evalution methods for the critic section now

Atubman: /* Comments & Discussion */

2010-12-02T21:25:43Z

Comments & Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:25, 2 December 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=Comments & Discussion=		=Comments & Discussion=

			--Writing up a critic of the researches evalution methods for the critic section now

			[[User:Atubman\|Atubman]] 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


	I've added to the Contribution part of the essay. I've basically explained as much as I thought was pertinent in what the section was asking for but don't be shy to add more!		I've added to the Contribution part of the essay. I've basically explained as much as I thought was pertinent in what the section was asking for but don't be shy to add more!

Gsmith6: /* Comments & Discussion */

2010-12-02T16:14:37Z

Comments & Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:14, 2 December 2010
Line 18:		Line 18:
	[[User:Atubman\|Atubman]] 03:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)		[[User:Atubman\|Atubman]] 03:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

	This is what I understand of the TCB. Basically it is all of the components that are essential to the security of the computer system. Pretty much the stuff inside the kernel that if is compromised is "bad news bears". By removing things like device drivers, you reduce the TCB quite considerably (like probably 10s of thousands of lines of code). The smaller the TCB, the less of a chance that you have an essential component getting corrupted. I don't know if I'm explaining it right, but maybe someone else can expand on what I've written here.		This is what I understand of the TCB. Basically it is all of the components that are essential to the security of the computer system. Pretty much the stuff inside the kernel that if is compromised is "bad news bears". By removing things like device drivers, you reduce the TCB quite considerably (like probably 10s of thousands of lines of code). The smaller the TCB, the less of a chance that you have of an essential component getting corrupted. I don't know if I'm explaining it right, but maybe someone else can expand on what I've written here.
	--[[User:Gsmith6\|Gsmith6]] 16:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)		--[[User:Gsmith6\|Gsmith6]] 16:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Gsmith6: /* Comments & Discussion */

2010-12-02T16:13:16Z

Comments & Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:13, 2 December 2010
Line 17:		Line 17:

	[[User:Atubman\|Atubman]] 03:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)		[[User:Atubman\|Atubman]] 03:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

			This is what I understand of the TCB. Basically it is all of the components that are essential to the security of the computer system. Pretty much the stuff inside the kernel that if is compromised is "bad news bears". By removing things like device drivers, you reduce the TCB quite considerably (like probably 10s of thousands of lines of code). The smaller the TCB, the less of a chance that you have an essential component getting corrupted. I don't know if I'm explaining it right, but maybe someone else can expand on what I've written here.
			--[[User:Gsmith6\|Gsmith6]] 16:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Selliot3 at 14:11, 2 December 2010

2010-12-02T14:11:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:11, 2 December 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=Comments & Discussion=		=Comments & Discussion=
			I've added to the Contribution part of the essay. I've basically explained as much as I thought was pertinent in what the section was asking for but don't be shy to add more!

			--[[User:Selliot3\|Selliot3]] 14:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


	IBOS is designed to talk directly to the hardware. That's why they have everything at the lower level. All that extra TCB in other browsers was for all the extra stuff like services, OS components blah blah. I get their drift and how less code is secure but I don't get how they did it! From where do they get the services they claim to have taken out but still operates the same as any other browser. There is a catch somewhere but I can't find it in the paper or maybe I'm blind. I've been reading a lot of text but I got nowhere, its either too complex or not close to what I'm looking for.		IBOS is designed to talk directly to the hardware. That's why they have everything at the lower level. All that extra TCB in other browsers was for all the extra stuff like services, OS components blah blah. I get their drift and how less code is secure but I don't get how they did it! From where do they get the services they claim to have taken out but still operates the same as any other browser. There is a catch somewhere but I can't find it in the paper or maybe I'm blind. I've been reading a lot of text but I got nowhere, its either too complex or not close to what I'm looking for.

Atubman at 04:24, 2 December 2010

2010-12-02T04:24:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:24, 2 December 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:

	The IBOS attempts to improve the security of web browsers. The writers argue that the large size of the trusted code bases (TCB) which modern web browsers make use of increases the possibility of a security hole. For example a hijacked window manager could be used to draw a fake phishing website overtop a web browser. The researchers solution is drastically shrinking the size of the TCB. The TCB is shrunk by turning the web browser into an operating system in itself with direct access to hardware abstractions.		The IBOS attempts to improve the security of web browsers. The writers argue that the large size of the trusted code bases (TCB) which modern web browsers make use of increases the possibility of a security hole. For example a hijacked window manager could be used to draw a fake phishing website overtop a web browser. The researchers solution is drastically shrinking the size of the TCB. The TCB is shrunk by turning the web browser into an operating system in itself with direct access to hardware abstractions.

			Meanwhile, the IBOS must still support existing web applications while maintaining security.

	[[User:Atubman\|Atubman]] 03:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)		[[User:Atubman\|Atubman]] 03:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)