May 13 2009

Kylin Secure OS

Published by at 3:29 am under Uncategorized

First, I want to thank J.D. Abolins for taking the time this week to school me on cyber warfare.  Needed to get up to speed on the latest and greatest in current thinking on the subject and J.D. provided me with chapter, line and verse.  As I recall, he was also one of the first people to link to this blog.

So, how do you repay someone who took time out of their busy schedule to do you a personal favor? Manners dictate that you steal their detailed research on Kylin of  course! Yep, we here at TDV just roll that way.

J.D. Abolins on Kylin Secure OS

Thanks J.D.

10 responses so far

10 Responses to “Kylin Secure OS”

  1. CBRP1R8on 13 May 2009 at 8:47 am

    “o, how do you repay someone who took time out of their busy schedule to do you a personal favor? Manners dictate that you steal their detailed research”

    LOLOL-It was a very good read though, I forwarded info on as well.

  2. Heikeon 13 May 2009 at 10:11 am


    Doncho Danchev has a very good article on this as well.

  3. Heikeon 13 May 2009 at 10:14 am

    There was suppose to be a hyperlink in that last comment but for some reason it isn’t displaying. Here is the URL:

  4. The Pullon 13 May 2009 at 2:41 pm

    **I understand Mr. Coleman’s concerns about cyberwarfare aspects and how the PRC’s cyber-defence could hinder US cyber cababilities against their systems. But, we should not deem overall attempts to have more secure operating systems as “warfare” in a sinister sense per se. Improving cyber-security is something that we all should be doing. Being “peaceful” in the networked world does not mean having servers running unpatched Windows. The US, UK, etc. should be encouraging their government, corporate, and infrastructure systems to be better secured. (The US has done projects such NSA’s work on Security Enhanced Linux. Some might call that as an example of US cyber-warfare.)**

    I totally agree. Working in code analysis – I find security bugs in applications – this is the sort of thing China should be doing, defense. Not offense.

    And we should focus on defense as well.

    And we are doing that.

    You have to think about public relations. The bigger picture. Defense no one can complain about… and we still have a great amount of work to do.

    I actually shouldn’t be making this argument, working in securing things… because with less interesting opponents, gee whiz, what happens to all of our funding, etc? Good news is that I don’t think China will quit anytime soon. What a world that would be… to only have to worry about individuals without sophisticated agendas designed by teams of attack savvy people.

    But, conscience dictates that we should push for China to cut it out. We have a solid argument in doing so… the very evidence of their continuing crimes is that argument. Further, the evidence of the stupidity of this agenda of theirs is extremely compelling evidence.

    The ‘tit for tat’ strategy just doesn’t work… anyway, we don’t need to engage in S&T theft… that’s why they are stealing from us in the first place. (One reason.) Their system is unstable and does not produce the sort of technology free world nations do. It can’t. You have to have a truly open, fair system to produce excellence.

  5. CBRP1R8on 14 May 2009 at 7:03 am

    While I agree on the defense part, everyone should have good defense, sometimes even that can be viewed as offense. Just a look at past initiatives such as SDI (StarWars)..or MDS (THAAD and other missile def systems)….others might see this as a failsafe to an offense which could be launched by us at any time, yet still protect us…insanity has brought us close enough to that breach many more times then I’d like to have had over the past 50 yrs.

    That being said, when you have quotes from a general, basically in my opinion, flat out stating we’ll go to war over being cyber attacked (nukes/conventional etc), this is what worries me…

    Defense can be good, “the best defense is a good offense” may not be so good…all around..and in all cases..

  6. the Pullon 14 May 2009 at 12:42 pm


    I do not disagree. I am big on turn the other cheek. You have to be a real strong person to do that in real life.

    And that can mean – regardless of consequences – that you have the confidence you will achieve your goals regardless of the proverbial slaps you get.

    A missle, is one type of defense. That is kind of an offensive defense. A star wars program is something else. That is pure defense when it is designed simply to shoot down missles at you. That did cause the Soviet Union a lot of stress. But, they should have been stressed to see how their missle system – which they built up instead of their own nation in no small way – was going to become possibility obsolete in the future.

    And the funny thing is… if they tried to be our allies instead of our enemies… would we have not treated them as we treat the UK?

    On the general making whatever comment, that is up to him. I can not second guess his perspective. I do not know it. We definitely can all make mistakes or beat the war drum… when we should be beating the peace drum. Everybody bluffs. Bluffs can only go so far. You have to know where and when there are bluffs to get anywhere in life.

    With powerful people… organizations… a bluff may very well be a bluff only because they know that they are serious enough and capable enough that no one would dare challenge them. So it is only a bluff because they might understand the other party — that they would never proceed with any manner of MAD sort of scenario.

  7. the Pullon 14 May 2009 at 4:46 pm


    Might add… I have really noticed that tightly closed in systems that really are not focusing on what they should be doing, eg, totalitarian systems… have a profound tendency towards paranoia. That paranoia can really cripple their resources, blinding them. I can see times where it can be useful to engage their paranoia and use it against them in a directed manner… so they chase their own tail, as it were… as opposed to us (remember Stalin’s focus on Trotsky)… but it can also be very dangerous (what if the Soviet Union could have been shown – somehow – we were not ‘out to get them’… wow… and China, hopefully, is much smarter and more capable then what the Soviet Union was…

    All that is nice and pretty… but there are basic facts on the ground. People employed to protect our country are centered on that goal. We can’t get rid of the cops to get rid of crime. That would just bring about anarchy.

    If there was any other way to have stopped the previous Cold War, I think that would have been great. One thing I noticed was that they really ran themselves into the ground with an enormous apparatus for policing/intelligence and defense… they really could not afford… and then you have the Solidarity movement in Poland/the various put downs through Eastern Europe… these things really showed up the Soviet Union – internationally – as the bad guy. And, internally, too.

    And those were likes cracks in glass, is the way I look at it… cracks in a glass floor… they grow and grow and do not go away until everything gives.

    But, who knows, I could be wrong. I definitely do not think crushing Tibet or the Tiananmen Square put down helped China’s existing leadership do anything but show up the very fragile nature of their power.

    I think, conversely, despite our mistakes, Free World power in our various nations is very, very secure.

  8. Nomadon 14 May 2009 at 8:50 pm

    That’s all bullshit!Chinese will attack us soon

  9. the Pullon 14 May 2009 at 10:48 pm


    If you think something is crap, why not cite specifically what it is. As for the Chinese “going to attack us soon” — no one is saying otherwise.

    If you are trying to challenge anyone’s patriotism, I think you shouldn’t judge people. (And have no idea who you are talking to.)

    All I am trying to do is reason with any Chinese that may be out there who might be influential. Quite frankly, I think this issue may very well flare up horribly before it gets better. I hope not. But, the good will win.

    And we are surely the good.

  10. Markon 20 May 2009 at 3:32 pm

    I just found this and it looks like DoD agrees!

    DoD stated the following.

    “China has also identified 16 “major special items” for which it plans to develop or expand indigenous capabilities. These include core electronic components, high-end universal chips and operating system software, very large-scale integrated circuit manufacturing, next-generation broadband wireless mobile communications, high-grade numerically controlled machine tools, large aircraft, high-resolution satellites, manned spaceflight, and lunar exploration.”

    The PLA is investing in electronic countermeasures, defenses against electronic attack (e.g., electronic and infrared decoys, angle reflectors, and false target generators), and Computer Network Operations (CNO). China’s CNO concepts include computer network attack (CNA), computer network exploitation (CNE), and computer network defense (CND). The PLA has established information warfare units to develop viruses to attack enemy computer systems and networks, and tactics and measures to protect friendly computer systems and networks. In 2005, the PLA began to incorporate offensive CNO into its exercises, primarily in first strikes against enemy networks.”

    The above was taken from the US DoD Annual Estimates of Information Warfare Capabilities and Commitment of the PRC


    The information from a summary of China’s trusted computing program TCP

    They specifically talk about the “trust chain” and that includes “new OS component, OS, BIOS and CRTM. (PAGE 6)

    Their extended trust chain model includes an “OS loader and the OS Cernal as well as Applications” (PAGE 8)

    Their security architecture shows “strengthened bios and a strengthened OS TSS” (PAGE 9)

    They also present a secure memory area on a microprocessor. (PAGE 10)