<quote>Seriously... I work with a WiFi lab at work... I have a Faraday Cage in our lab... One of the techs forgot to install an optical isolator on the network cables, so for a few days the ethernet cables went right into the cage... Well, first day I went to use it, I locked myself in the cage, and was surprised that my cellphone started ringing... Without the optical isolators on the network cable, the RF signals were able to find there way into the faraday cage through the ethernet cables....
with that being said, I highly doubt that simply painting your walls will keep RF signals at bay... Even when the grounding wire was simply loose on the door to the faraday cage, RF signals would leak in...</quote>

This is very interesting! Do You have some physics explanation behind it? Could there be some externalities, such as, door not fully closed, ventilation open, etc ?

Isn't this kind of the point? If You can spend 2 hours and have a domain deployment with all the features You need done by a average paid admin, why spend two weeks by a linux guru? IT on a basic level is not something that adds immense value so why spend a lot on it?
P.S. I love hacking just as the next guy and linux on enteprise is my pet peevee.

I wonder if the Tornado authors set forth to re-implemented <a href="http://twistedmatrix.com/trac/">Twisted Python</a> just for kicks or out of not knowning about its existence.

Twisted supports epoll kqueue, win32 iocp, select, etc.

I am an IT auditor working for a company that You would call if You would want to be certified.

Certification means that there is a work (audit) programme that states control objectives. Auditor follows this programme very closely and then, if the issues are within some zone of tolerance (which may be zero as well), auditor writes a statement that company XYZ is compliant with this and that.

What it does NOT mean is:
  a) a certified company will follow its practice after certification (they may just have put a convincing show).
  b) that there are no other issues with the company that are outside of work programme
  c) that sysadmin will be dilligent in future to apply timely patches

A PCI-DSS compliance says "There are no critical issues on the surface". That's it.

That's not what he illustrated, he said that selinux doesn't work because there are buffer overflows.

3.3 mil is a lot of money for uncertain outcome. We already have microreboots in some toy systems, that should solve crashes and ensure that system continues to operate (though it will probably go through the crash-reboot-work-crash cycle endlessly. We already have in-memory kernel patching from SUN and partially from linux. Not to mention SELinux and Hurd and the rest of security ideas. I think that the real purpose of the project is to suck funding. Let me quote from Tannenbaum's project proposal:

• "..but I should start out by pointing out how ambitious and risky this research is." In layman's terms it means: "I want to experiment, but no promises or even deliverables".
• "... nearly all experience with actual security incidents shows that security problems almost always stem from actions that the design and rules forbid but which bugs in the code allow to happen anyway." and "The most serious reliability and security problems are those relating to the operating system" I am a security consultant and most security incidents stem from misunderstanding the basics, like password management, not buffer overflows. Seriously, has he ever consulted a security practitioner?
• Some classic proof by (broken) analogy: "Banks lock their front doors at night and have strong safes even though there are laws forbidding bank robbery" What does this prove exactly?
• "What I am proposing is a fundamental redesign of the operating system." Dude, seriously, You mention known concepts and offer fundamental redesign? Is this just a rewrite project for minix?

I could go on and on like this. This is how funds are spent without any real gain, not even new concept evolution. Andy, give the EU taxpayers money back!