Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Hint: There is no Sandbox. (Score 1) 244

by pthreadunixman (#36110302) Attached to: Google Engineers Deny Hack Exploited Chrome

You mean a VM where each process looks like it has the processor/memory to itself (AKA x86 protected mode)? We already have VM sandboxes. They're called a PROCESS. Taking this concept to an absurd level of regression (full os virtualization) and then coming up with some convoluted way to let all the parts communicate again (necessary if you want it to do anything useful) adds absolutely nothing to the security aspect other than a high degree of obfuscation.

You guys and your delusional layer cake security schemes. Things do not run on the machine like that. You can add all the boxes and layers to your diagrams all you want; but, in reality it's all flat where the only difference between all your security contexts are some integer values in memory.

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...