Well, this post seems to get a lot of attention throughout the Internet. I normally do not participate on argumentations about opinions. However, I feel like I should get involved, as this is the field I am currently commencing my PhD research in.
First, I think Theo is right when he states, that adding another layer of software doesn9t increase security. That9s what we all learned painfully in the past Chroot and jails come to mind (One has to dig deeper to find the problem) It is also true that the x86 was never designed to provide virtualization, besides, it also lacks proper separation. It wasn9t designed to be a success it just happened and we have to live with it. (This reminds me of Microsoft introducing their extension to DOS, called Windows) There are A LOT of caveats when it comes to virtualize the x86 architecture. That9s the reason why Intels VT and AMDs SVM are necessary at all. (SVM which, btw, stands for secure virtual machine - marketing is also something we have to live with, whether you believe in it or not.) It would be desirable to start over, design a new, none backwards compatible, virtualizable hardware. Best, put an extra abstraction layer on top of the hardware (put it in the BIOS or Firmware) and only deal with those interfaces. Add some crypto features et. voila. **sigh** Unfortunately, we are not living in a perfect world. So what can virtualization do for us? Speaking of paravirtualization as in the previous posts, it may add a little security in comparison to jails, but it adds a lot of convenience as handling of VMs gets easier. Which is the main selling point, so the major interest in the near future will be the handling of those virtual machines, and unfortunately not security. Security, or the way we (I/some) see it, does not sell as good as features. I have no doubt that exploiting a VM will become reality sooner or later. However, I would like to keep the discussion going, maybe in a less offensive way?! Cheers Carlo
