DOCSLIB.ORG

Lecture 4 L4android: a Generic Operating System Framework for Secure Smartphones

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lecture 4 L4android: a Generic Operating System Framework for Secure Smartphones Lecture 4 L4Android: A Generic Operating System Framework for Secure Smartphones Matthias Lange, Adam Lackorzynski et al. Operating Systems Practical 23 October, 2013 OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 1/36 Contents Context Proposed solution Fiasco.OC L4Re L4Android Evaluation Keywords Questions OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 2/36 Outline Context Proposed solution Fiasco.OC L4Re L4Android Evaluation Keywords Questions OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 3/36 Context I Ubiquity of smartphones I Need for secure apps I Near Field Communication I SIM cards I Inherent lack of security in smartphone software OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 4/36 Security issues: delayed updates I Mainline Android development: done by Google I Phone vendors deploy customized Android versions I \Maintenance nightmare": I Provide periodic updates that fix vulnerabilities I Or no updates at all (that would cost too much) OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 5/36 Security issues: Linux kernel I Monolithic kernels are difficult to verify I Device drivers run with full privileges I Kernel components aren't isolated I Device manufacturers develop custom (often proprietary) drivers OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 6/36 Security issues: rooted phones I Root privileges allow full access to: I all the user data I manufacturer settings I the kernel I \Rooted" phones are more vulnerable I Android phones don't allow root access by default I Root access can be obtained I manually by the user I by malicious software (via exploits) OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 7/36 Security issues: Android permission system I Permissions in Android I based on Mandatory Access Control (MAC) I \all or nothing" paradigm I too coarse-grained I e.g.: grant access to Internet and Address Book I ! software can send user Address Book to any remote location OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 8/36 Outline Context Proposed solution Fiasco.OC L4Re L4Android Evaluation Keywords Questions OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 9/36 A solution I Isolate OS inside a virtual machine I Run secure apps outside the OS I Use a microkernel-based framework I "extended hardware" I small Trusted Computing Base (TCB) I drivers as userspace services OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 10/36 A solution: L4Android I Framework for developing secure smartphone apps I Components: I microkernel: Fiasco.OC µkernel I services: L4Re runtime environment 4 I kernel: L Android I userspace: Android libraries, apps, ::: OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 11/36 Outline Context Proposed solution Fiasco.OC L4Re L4Android Evaluation Keywords Questions OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 12/36 Fiasco.OC: Overview I Based on Jochen Liedtke's L4 microkernel I Implements basic OS primitives I Address Spaces I Threads I Scheduling I Inter-Process Communication I Interrupt Delivery (via Asynchronous IPC) OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 13/36 Fiasco.OC: Protection Domains I Protection Domains: I equivalent to Linux namespaces/containers I run as tasks on top of the microkernel I provide isolation I among virtual machines I between VMs and the TCB OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 14/36 Fiasco.OC: Capabilities I Capabilities provide access to: I kernel objects I address spaces I threads I communication channels I interrupts I Fine-grained control over resources OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 15/36 Fiasco.OC: Verification I Microkernel exposes minimal interface I small number of system calls I Code base is small (∼20,000 lines of code) I Kernel is formally verifiable OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 16/36 Outline Context Proposed solution Fiasco.OC L4Re L4Android Evaluation Keywords Questions OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 17/36 L4 Runtime Environment I Software layer on top of the microkernel I Simplifies development in microkernel userspace I Consists of: I basic functionality: allocators, data structures etc. I user libraries: C, C++, pthread etc. I servers providing access to I/O devices OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 18/36 Outline Context Proposed solution Fiasco.OC L4Re L4Android Evaluation Keywords Questions OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 19/36 L4Android 4 I L Linux: Linux kernel modified to run paravirtualized I on top of Fiasco.OC + L4Re I with fine-grained access to devices via I/O servers 4 I an L Linux instance can run without any access to peripherals I or it can be used as a driver provider 4 I L Android Kernel 4 I based on L Linux I contains Android patches (wakelocks, binder etc.) I therefore it is able to run the Android user stack OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 20/36 Outline Context Proposed solution Fiasco.OC L4Re L4Android Evaluation Keywords Questions OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 21/36 Evaluation: Overview I Four proposed scenarios I Software Smartcard I Mobile Rootkit Detection I Hardware Abstraction Layer I Unified Corporate and Private Phone I Last scenario implemented as a demo I Runnable on ARM and x86 architectures I Freescale iMX.51 (Cortex-A8) I Aava Mobile developer phone (Moorestown) OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 22/36 Evaluation: Software Smartcard I Smartcard: I processor and memory integrated on a plastic card I cryptographic coprocessor smarcards for: I mobile phones (SIM, NFC) I credit cards I USB tokens I \Software smartcard": I performing the same computations in software I cheaper and more flexible than a physical smartcard I usually unfeasible due to high security demands OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 23/36 Evaluation: Software Smartcard (2) I the Fiasco.OC provides a secure computing base I the smartcard operations run on top of the microkernel I L4Re and microkernel syscalls offer a trusted interface 4 I isolation from the L Android domain is achieved I timing attacks are deflected by secure scheduling I vendors can implement various virtual smartcard configurations OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 24/36 Evaluation: Software Smartcard Possible Smartcard setup: OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 25/36 Evaluation: Hardware Abstraction Layer I HAL: proposed L4-based development model for Linux drivers I move driver logic to a layer between L4Re and the guest kernel I develop generic driver stub in the guest OS I easier to port drivers to new kernel versions I by updating the Linux-HAL interface I driver faults are isolated from the rest of the system OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 26/36 Evaluation: Hardware Abstraction Layer OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 27/36 Evaluation: Dual Android Phone I Corporate smartphones contain sensitive information I Employees routinely carry two smartphones: I a company-provided smartphone configured according to the company's security policy I a personal, unrestricted phone OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 28/36 Evaluation: Dual Android Phone (2) I Solution: a single phone running two Android virtual machines I private Android: can even be rooted I secure Android: implements corporate security policies I User can easily switch between instances at runtime OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 29/36 Evaluation: Dual Android Phone (3) I Access to devices is multiplexed between instances I Stub drivers in the guest kernels I Driver servers in the L4 Runtime Environment I Virtualization requirements: I secure GUI server I virtual Ethernet interfaces I mobile telephony, hardware graphics/sound acceleration I drivers are binaries in the Linux kernel or Android userspace I difficult to virtualize OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 30/36 Evaluation: Dual Android Phone OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 31/36 Outline Context Proposed solution Fiasco.OC L4Re L4Android Evaluation Keywords Questions OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 32/36 Keywords I smartphones I Trusted Computing Base I operating system security I paravirtualization I Mandatory Access Control I microkernel I protection domain I L4 I capability I I/O server OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 33/36 Resources I http://l4android.org I http://l4linux.org I http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/L4/ I http://users.sec.t-labs.tu-berlin.de/~steffen/ papers/spsm03-lange.pdf I Jochen Lietdke: On µ-Kernel Construction OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 34/36 Outline Context Proposed solution Fiasco.OC L4Re L4Android Evaluation Keywords Questions OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 35/36 Questions ? OSP Lecture 4, L4Android 36/36.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Search of the Ideal Storage Configuration for Docker Containers
    In Search of the Ideal Storage Configuration for Docker Containers Vasily Tarasov1, Lukas Rupprecht1, Dimitris Skourtis1, Amit Warke1, Dean Hildebrand1 Mohamed Mohamed1, Nagapramod Mandagere1, Wenji Li2, Raju Rangaswami3, Ming Zhao2 1IBM Research—Almaden 2Arizona State University 3Florida International University Abstract—Containers are a widely successful technology today every running container. This would cause a great burden on popularized by Docker. Containers improve system utilization by the I/O subsystem and make container start time unacceptably increasing workload density. Docker containers enable seamless high for many workloads. As a result, copy-on-write (CoW) deployment of workloads across development, test, and produc- tion environments. Docker’s unique approach to data manage- storage and storage snapshots are popularly used and images ment, which involves frequent snapshot creation and removal, are structured in layers. A layer consists of a set of files and presents a new set of exciting challenges for storage systems. At layers with the same content can be shared across images, the same time, storage management for Docker containers has reducing the amount of storage required to run containers. remained largely unexplored with a dizzying array of solution With Docker, one can choose Aufs [6], Overlay2 [7], choices and configuration options. In this paper we unravel the multi-faceted nature of Docker storage and demonstrate its Btrfs [8], or device-mapper (dm) [9] as storage drivers which impact on system and workload performance. As we uncover provide the required snapshotting and CoW capabilities for new properties of the popular Docker storage drivers, this is a images. None of these solutions, however, were designed with sobering reminder that widespread use of new technologies can Docker in mind and their effectiveness for Docker has not been often precede their careful evaluation.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving the Reliability of Commodity Operating Systems
    Improving the Reliability of Commodity Operating Systems MICHAEL M. SWIFT, BRIAN N. BERSHAD, and HENRY M. LEVY University of Washington Despite decades of research in extensible operating system technology, extensions such as device drivers remain a significant cause of system failures. In Windows XP, for example, drivers account for 85% of recently reported failures. This paper describes Nooks, a reliability subsystem that seeks to greatly enhance OS reliability by isolating the OS from driver failures. The Nooks approach is practical: rather than guaranteeing complete fault tolerance through a new (and incompatible) OS or driver architecture, our goal is to prevent the vast majority of driver-caused crashes with little or no change to existing driver and system code. Nooks isolates drivers within lightweight protection domains inside the kernel address space, where hardware and software prevent them from corrupting the kernel. Nooks also tracks a driver’s use of kernel resources to facilitate automatic clean-up during recovery. To prove the viability of our approach, we implemented Nooks in the Linux operating system and used it to fault-isolate several device drivers. Our results show that Nooks offers a substantial increase in the reliability of operating systems, catching and quickly recovering from many faults that would otherwise crash the system. Under a wide range and number of fault conditions, we show that Nooks recovers automatically from 99% of the faults that otherwise cause Linux to crash. While Nooks was designed for drivers, our techniques generalize to other kernel extensions. We demonstrate this by isolating a kernel-mode file system and an in-kernel Internet service.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Management: Linux Kernel Namespaces and Cgroups
    Resource management: Linux kernel Namespaces and cgroups Rami Rosen [email protected] Haifux, May 2013 www.haifux.org 1/121 http://ramirose.wix.com/ramirosen TOC Network Namespace PID namespaces UTS namespace Mount namespace user namespaces cgroups Mounting cgroups links Note: All code examples are from for_3_10 branch of cgroup git tree (3.9.0-rc1, April 2013) 2/121 http://ramirose.wix.com/ramirosen General The presentation deals with two Linux process resource management solutions: namespaces and cgroups. We will look at: ● Kernel Implementation details. ●what was added/changed in brief. ● User space interface. ● Some working examples. ● Usage of namespaces and cgroups in other projects. ● Is process virtualization indeed lightweight comparing to Os virtualization ? ●Comparing to VMWare/qemu/scaleMP or even to Xen/KVM. 3/121 http://ramirose.wix.com/ramirosen Namespaces ● Namespaces - lightweight process virtualization. – Isolation: Enable a process (or several processes) to have different views of the system than other processes. – 1992: “The Use of Name Spaces in Plan 9” – http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/names.html ● Rob Pike et al, ACM SIGOPS European Workshop 1992. – Much like Zones in Solaris. – No hypervisor layer (as in OS virtualization like KVM, Xen) – Only one system call was added (setns()) – Used in Checkpoint/Restart ● Developers: Eric W. biederman, Pavel Emelyanov, Al Viro, Cyrill Gorcunov, more. – 4/121 http://ramirose.wix.com/ramirosen Namespaces - contd There are currently 6 namespaces: ● mnt (mount points, filesystems) ● pid (processes) ● net (network stack) ● ipc (System V IPC) ● uts (hostname) ● user (UIDs) 5/121 http://ramirose.wix.com/ramirosen Namespaces - contd It was intended that there will be 10 namespaces: the following 4 namespaces are not implemented (yet): ● security namespace ● security keys namespace ● device namespace ● time namespace.
    [Show full text]
  • Legacy Reuse
    Faculty of Computer Science Institute for System Architecture, Operating Systems Group LEGACY REUSE CARSTEN WEINHOLD THIS LECTURE ... ■ So far ... ■ Basic microkernel concepts ■ Drivers, resource management ■ Today: ■ How to provide legacy OS personalities ■ How to reuse existing infrastructure ■ How to make applications happy TU Dresden Legacy Reuse 2 VIRTUALIZATION ■ Virtualization: ■ Reuse legacy OS + applications ■ Run applications in natural environment ■ Problem: Applications trapped in VMs ■ Different resource pools, namespaces ■ Cooperation is cumbersome (network, ...) ■ Full legacy OS in VM adds overhead ■ Multiple desktops? Bad user experience TU Dresden Legacy Reuse 3 MAKING THE CUT ■ Hardware level: Next week ■ Virtualize legacy OS on top of new OS ■ Operating System Personality: ■ Legacy OS interfaces reimplemented on top of – or ported to – new OS ■ Hybrid operating systems: Today ■ Run legacy OS virtualized … ■ … but tightly integrated with new OS TU Dresden Legacy Reuse 4 OPERATING SYSTEM PERSONALITIES TU Dresden Legacy Reuse 5 OS PERSONALITY ■ Idea: Adapt OS / application boundary ■ (Re-)Implement legacy APIs, not whole OS ■ May need to recompile application ■ Benefits: ■ Get desired application, established APIs ■ Good integration (namespaces, files, ...) ■ Smaller overhead than virtualization ■ Flexible, configurable, but more effort? TU Dresden Legacy Reuse 6 MONOLITHIC KERNELS App App Monolithic Kernel System Call Entry Ext2 VFAT IP Stack Disk Driver NIC Driver TU Dresden Legacy Reuse 7 DECOMPOSITION App App App App Monolithic
    [Show full text]
  • Kernel Architectures
    A short history of kernels n Early kernel: a library of device drivers, support for threads (QNX) Operating System Kernels n Monolithic kernels: Unix, VMS, OS 360… n Unstructured but fast… n Over time, became very large Ken Birman n Eventually, DLLs helped on size n Pure microkernels: Mach, Amoeba, Chorus… (borrowing some content from n OS as a kind of application Peter Sirokman) n Impure microkernels: Modern Windows OS n Microkernel optimized to support a single OS n VMM support for Unix on Windows and vice versa The great m-kernel debate Summary of First Paper n How big does it need to be? n The Performance of µ-Kernel-Based Systems (Hartig et al. 16th SOSP, Oct 1997) n With a m-kernel protection-boundary crossing forces us to n Evaluates the L4 microkernel as a basis for a full operating system n Change memory -map n Ports Linux to run on top of L4 and compares n Flush TLB (unless tagged) performance to native Linux and Linux running on n With a macro-kernel we lose structural the Mach microkernel protection benefits and fault-containment n Explores the extensibility of the L4 microkernel n Debate raged during early 1980’s Summary of Second Paper In perspective? n The Flux OSKit: A Substrate for Kernel and n L4 seeks to validate idea that a m-kernel Language Research (Ford et al. 16th SOSP, can support a full OS without terrible 1997) cost penalty n Describes a set of OS components designed to be used to build custom operating systems n Opened the door to architectures like the n Includes existing code simply using “glue code” Windows
    [Show full text]
  • The Nizza Secure-System Architecture
    Appears in the proceedings of CollaborateCom 2005, San Jose, CA, USA The Nizza Secure-System Architecture Hermann Härtig Michael Hohmuth Norman Feske Christian Helmuth Adam Lackorzynski Frank Mehnert Michael Peter Technische Universität Dresden Institute for System Architecture D-01062 Dresden, Germany [email protected] Abstract rely on a standard OS (including the kernel) to assure their security properties. The trusted computing bases (TCBs) of applications run- To address the conflicting requirements of complete ning on today’s commodity operating systems have become functionality and the protection of security-sensitive data, extremely large. This paper presents an architecture that researchers have devised system architectures that reduce allows to build applications with a much smaller TCB. It the system’s TCB by running kernels in untrusted mode is based on a kernelized architecture and on the reuse of in a secure compartment on top of a small security kernel; legacy software using trusted wrappers. We discuss the de- security-sensitive services run alongside the OS in isolated sign principles, the architecture and some components, and compartments of their own. This architecture is widely re- a number of usage examples. ferred to as kernelized standard OS or kernelized system. In this paper, we describe Nizza, a new kernelized- system architecture. In the design of Nizza, we set out to answer the question of how small the TCB can be made. 1 Introduction We have argued in previous work that the (hardware and software) technologies needed to build small secure-system Desktop and hand-held computers are used for many platforms have become much more mature since earlier at- functions, often in parallel, some of which are security tempts [8].
    [Show full text]
  • Separating Protection and Management in Cloud Infrastructures
    SEPARATING PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT IN CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURES A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Zhiming Shen December 2017 c 2017 Zhiming Shen ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SEPARATING PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT IN CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURES Zhiming Shen, Ph.D. Cornell University 2017 Cloud computing infrastructures serving mutually untrusted users provide se- curity isolation to protect user computation and resources. Additionally, clouds should also support flexibility and efficiency, so that users can customize re- source management policies and optimize performance and resource utiliza- tion. However, flexibility and efficiency are typically limited due to security requirements. This dissertation investigates the question of how to offer flexi- bility and efficiency as well as strong security in cloud infrastructures. Specifically, this dissertation addresses two important platforms in cloud in- frastructures: the containers and the Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) platforms. The containers platform supports efficient container provisioning and execut- ing, but does not provide sufficient security and flexibility. Different containers share an operating system kernel which has a large attack surface, and kernel customization is generally not allowed. The IaaS platform supports secure shar- ing of cloud resources among mutually untrusted users, but does not provide sufficient flexibility and efficiency. Many powerful management primitives en- abled by the underlying virtualization platform are hidden from users, such as live virtual machine migration and consolidation. The main contribution of this dissertation is the proposal of an approach in- spired by the exokernel architecture that can be generalized to any multi-tenant system to improve security, flexibility, and efficiency.
    [Show full text]
  • Containers – Namespaces and Cgroups
    Containers – namespaces and cgroups --- Ajay Nayak Motivation Why containers? • Important use-case: implementing lightweight virtualization • Virtualization == isolation of processes • Traditional virtualization: Hypervisors • Processes isolated by running in separate guest kernels that sit on top of host kernel • Isolation is “all or nothing” • Virtualization via containers • Permit isolation of processes running on a single kernel be per-global- resource --- via namespaces • Restrict resource consumption --- via cgroups Outline • Motivation • Concepts • Linux Namespaces • UTS • UID • Mount • C(ontrol) groups • Food for thought Introduction Concepts • Isolation • Goal: Limit “WHAT” a process can use • “wrap” some global system resource to provide resource isolation • Namespaces jump into the picture • Control • Goal: Limit “HOW MUCH” a process can use • A mechanism for aggregating/partitioning sets of tasks, and all their future children, into hierarchical groups • Assign specialized behaviour to the group • C(ontrol) groups jump into the picture https://github.com/nayakajay/linux-namespaces Namespaces Linux namespaces • Supports following NS types: (CLONE_FLAG; symlink) • Mount (CLONE_NEWNS; /proc/pid/ns/mnt) • UTS (CLONE_NEWUTS; /proc/pid/ns/uts) • IPC (CLONE_NEWIPC; /proc/pid/ns/ipc) • PID (CLONE_NEWPID; /proc/pid/ns/pid) • Network (CLONE_NEWNET; /proc/pid/ns/net) • User (CLONE_NEWUSER; /proc/pid/ns/user) • Cgroup (CLONE_NEWCGROUP; /proc/pid/ns/cgroup) • Time (CLONE_NEWTIME; /proc/pid/ns/time) <= very new! # Magic symlinks, which
    [Show full text]
  • Security of OS-Level Virtualization Technologies: Technical Report
    Security of OS-level virtualization technologies Elena Reshetova1, Janne Karhunen2, Thomas Nyman3, N. Asokan4 1 Intel OTC, Finland 2 Ericsson, Finland 3 University of Helsinki, Finland 4 Aalto University and University of Helsinki, Finland Abstract. The need for flexible, low-overhead virtualization is evident on many fronts ranging from high-density cloud servers to mobile devices. During the past decade OS-level virtualization has emerged as a new, efficient approach for virtualization, with implementations in multiple different Unix-based systems. Despite its popularity, there has been no systematic study of OS-level virtualization from the point of view of security. In this report, we conduct a comparative study of several OS- level virtualization systems, discuss their security and identify some gaps in current solutions. 1 Introduction During the past couple of decades the use of different virtualization technolo- gies has been on a steady rise. Since IBM CP-40 [19], the first virtual machine prototype in 1966, many different types of virtualization and their uses have been actively explored both by the research community and by the industry. A relatively recent approach, which is becoming increasingly popular due to its light-weight nature, is Operating System-Level Virtualization, where a number of distinct user space instances, often referred to as containers, are run on top of a shared operating system kernel. A fundamental difference between OS-level virtualization and more established competitors, such as Xen hypervisor [24], VMWare [48] and Linux Kernel Virtual Machine [29] (KVM), is that in OS-level virtualization, the virtualized artifacts are global kernel resources, as opposed to hardware.
    [Show full text]
  • Research on Virtualisation Technlogy for Real-Time Reconfigurable Systems Tian Xia
    Research on virtualisation technlogy for real-time reconfigurable systems Tian Xia To cite this version: Tian Xia. Research on virtualisation technlogy for real-time reconfigurable systems. Electronics. INSA de Rennes, 2016. English. NNT : 2016ISAR0009. tel-01418453 HAL Id: tel-01418453 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01418453 Submitted on 16 Dec 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. THESE INSA Rennes présentée par sous le sceau de l’Université Bretagne Loire pour obtenir le titre de Tian Xia DOCTEUR DE L’INSA RENNES ECOLE DOCTORALE : MATISSE Spécialité : Electronique et Télécommunications LABORATOIRE : IETR Thèse soutenue le 05.07.2016 Research on devant le jury composé de : Virtualization Technology François Verdier Professeur, Université de Nice, Nice / Président for Real-time Emmanuel Grolleau Professeur, ISAE-ENSMA, Chasseneuil-Futuroscope / Rapporteur Reconfigurable Systems Guy Gogniat Professeur, Université de Bretagne-Sud, Lorient / Rapporteur Jean-Luc Bechennec Chargé de Recherche, Ecole Centrale de Nantes, Nantes / Examinateur Jean-Christophe Prévotet Maître de Conférence, INSA, Rennes / Co-encadrant de thèse Fabienne Nouvel Maître de Conférence HDR, INSA, Rennes / Directrice de thèse Research on Virtualization Technology for Real-time Reconfigurable Systems Tian Xia Résumé de la Thèse Aujourd’hui, les systèmes embarqués jouent un rôle prépondérant dans la vie quo- tidienne des utilisateurs.
    [Show full text]
  • L4 – Virtualization and Beyond
    L4 – Virtualization and Beyond Hermann Härtig!," Michael Roitzsch! Adam Lackorzynski" Björn Döbel" Alexander Böttcher! #!Department of Computer Science# "GWT-TUD GmbH # Technische Universität Dresden# 01187 Dresden, Germany # 01062 Dresden, Germany {haertig,mroi,adam,doebel,boettcher}@os.inf.tu-dresden.de Abstract Mac OS X environment, using full hardware After being introduced by IBM in the 1960s, acceleration by the GPU. Virtual machines are virtualization has experienced a renaissance in used to test potentially malicious software recent years. It has become a major industry trend without risking the host environment and they in the server context and is also popular on help developers in debugging crashes with back- consumer desktops. In addition to the well-known in-time execution. benefits of server consolidation and legacy In the server world, virtual machines are used to preservation, virtualization is now considered in consolidate multiple services previously located embedded systems. In this paper, we want to look on dedicated machines. Running them within beyond the term to evaluate advantages and virtual machines on one physical server eases downsides of various virtualization approaches. management and helps saving power by We show how virtualization can be increasing utilization. In server farms, migration complemented or even superseded by modern of virtual machines between servers is used to operating system paradigms. Using L4 as the balance load with the potential of shutting down basis for virtualization and as an advanced completely unloaded servers or adding more to microkernel provides a best-of-both-worlds increase capacity. Lastly, virtual machines also combination. Microkernels can contribute proven isolate different customers who can purchase real-time capabilities and small trusted computing virtual shares of a physical server in a data center.
    [Show full text]
  • Context Related Policies on Data Isolation for Organizational Data Using Profiles
    © 2015 IJEDR | NC3N 2015 | ISSN: 2321-9939 Context Related Policies on Data Isolation for Organizational Data using Profiles 1Vignesh M, 2Aishwarya K 1M.E Student, 2Assistant Professor, 1, 2 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Arulmigu Meenakshi Amman College of Engineering, vadamavandal-604410 Kancheepuram, Tamilnadu, India ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Abstract — General studies have shown that allowing access to enterprise services with smartphones increases employee productivity. Despite this positive scenario, users can install third-party applications on their smartphones, which may provide some malicious applications to access their company confidential information. This poses serious security concerns to sensitive corporate data. One possible solution to this problem is isolation, by keeping applications and data related to work separated from recreational applications. MOSES a solution for separating modes of use in smartphones. MOSES implements soft virtualization through controlled software. Profiles can be easily and dynamically specified by end users. MOSES provides a GUI for this purpose. Profiles can be fine-grained to the level of single object (e.g., file, SMS) and single application. Isolation Using MOSES creating profiles for securing confidential data but that the applications that have root access to the system can bypass MOSES protection. A Novel Attribute Based Access Control Enabled MOSES method proposed to overcome the problem of these root application bypassing the security profile protections. Keywords — MOSES, ABAC, GUI, SP, BYOD, Context ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION Smartphones allow end users to perform several tasks while being on the move [7]. As a consequence, end users require their personal smartphones to be connected to their work in IT infrastructure [9]. More of the companies nowadays provide mobile versions of their desktop applications [27].
    [Show full text]