Related articles

• Exclusive Interview: Going Three Levels Beyond Kernel Rootkits

  Today we have the pleasure of chatting with Joanna Rutkowska, one of the top computing security innovators in the world. She is the founder and CEO of Invisible Things Lab (ITL), a boutique computer security consulting and research firm. Alan: Joanna, thanks for taking the time to chat. Let's start with the basics for our readers. You've carved out a niche in the security world with your expertise on stealthy attacks, such as rootkits, and more recently by exposing vulnerabilities with virtual machines and low-level hardware. But before we go into all of this, why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself? Joanna: I'm a researcher focusing on system-level security issues like the kernel, hypervisor, chipset, etc.  Researcher--not a bug hunter or a pen-tester. I'm more interested in fundamental problems rather then specific bugs affecting specific user software. For example, can the OS/platform provide any security to the user, despite its apps such as Adobe Reader or IE being potentially compromised? I believe in “Security by Isolation.” Business-wise, I'm a founder and director of Invisible Things Lab (ITL), a boutique security research and consulting firm. I'm very proud of the team I managed to create at ITL, which includes Alexander Tereshkin and Rafal Wojtczuk, who are two of the most skilled researchers in the field of system-level security. Recently, I've been becoming less and less of a "debugger-attached-researcher," gravitating towards a higher-level role, which is needed to supervise the work done by my team. I enjoy this new role of a director a lot, in fact. Alan: It’s good to be the boss.  How did you get started in security research? Joanna: That was so long ago that I don't remember now. ;) Alan: Easier question then. What was your first computer and first computing memory? Mine’s a TI-99/4A, playing Parsec and Alpiner. I can still remember typing “OLD DSK1” as a three-year-old. Joanna: It was PC/AT 286 running at a blazing speed of some 16MHz, if I remember correctly, and also having 2MB of RAM (I think that all was after a motherboard upgrade though). I was 11 when I started playing with it, and almost immediately started my adventure with GW-BASIC, and then after a year or so I switched to Borland’s Turbo Basic--that was really a killer, with its beautiful GUI and ability to actually build executables! Alan: What’s a typical week at the office like? Joanna: We're proud to be a truly modern company. We don't have any physical offices. Everybody works from home and we exchange all the stuff via encrypted email. There is no such thing as 9-to-5 work hours here. The work we do requires lots of creativity, and it would be silly to enforce any strict working hours. For me personally, it’s especially important to take a nap during an afternoon. I cannot actually function too long without decent amount of sleep. I have actually never worked a single day in an office. Alan: (laughs) So who’s the typical ITL customer? Joanna: We direct our services primarily to system-level vendors. Alan: So, the likes of BIOS manufacturers and individual corporations looking for a secure computing environment? Joanna: I would stress the word vendors here, as we really are interested in being able to affect the technology. In my opinion the only rationale behind doing offensive research is to provide constructive criticism and change or improve the technology we have now. As such, ideally, we would like to work with both hardware (CPU/chipset) and software (BIOS/OS) vendors, as some of the cool new hardware technologies can be fully engaged only with the system software that is properly designed. Alan: What's the configuration of your primary system? Joanna: My primary desktop machine is an eight-core Mac Pro (2 x 2.8 GHz Intel Xeon) with 16 GB of DRAM and with a gorgeous 30" Apple monitor. It's the most beautiful desktop machine I've ever had--both when it comes to its aesthetics as well as GUI experience. I also use a rather old black MacBook (Santa Rosa, Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz, 4 GB of DRAM) as my general-purpose laptop. I've been postponing buying a new unibody sexy MacBook Pro because up until recently they have not supported more than 4 GB of DRAM (at least the 15" versions, which I prefer) which I've found discouraging. I can still see the weak point of the Mac hardware though: the lack of TPM, TXT, VT-d, and the OS X system. I try to get around some of the limitations of the OS with virtualization. I also use a number of PC-based hardware, both laptops and desktops. It strikes me how ugly most of the PC laptops are compared to Apple’s products, though. One exception being the Voodoo Envy 133--I just wish it came with a newer chipset, so I could rationalize the decision to buy it. ;) Alan: I’ve been running two generations of 13” unibody MacBooks now. The 9400M is perfect and the Li-polymer battery in the new one is absolute amazing. Flying across the US with in-flight Wi-Fi while on a single charge is an epiphany.  Joanna: Our conversation is becoming an Apple ad I guess. Maybe somebody at One Infinite Loop reads it and sends me a new 15” MacBook Pro in return? Alan: Last of the intro questions: what’s your favorite non-tech hobby? Joanna: A non-tech hobby? Hmm, you mean programming an autonomous hexapod robot with a brain based on two 8-bit AVR microcontrollers doesn't count?

• Apple’s former ad slogan of “Think Different” isn’t entirely accurate. While Apple is challenging consumers to make the switch away from the most popular operating system in the world, the Apple world is one of conformity. Once you decide to play in the Apple sandbox, you are stuck in the Apple sandbox. I can only buy a notebook in two colors: aluminum and white. I can’t buy a 2.0 GHz Macbook with a lighted keyboard or a MacBook Pro with an aluminum unibody design and a matte screen. I can’t buy a laptop with eSATA or an iMac with a Core 2 Quad or a monitor-less Mac with a Core 2 Duo and an Nvidia GPU. If I go with Apple, I have to play under Apple’s rules. On the other hand, the Apple Kool-Aid is mighty tasty. The iPod and iPhone have been the gateway drugs to the Mac ecosystem and philosophy. Both represent highly structured environments. By giving up the flexibility to load music directly onto your iPod or to use exotic formats such as FLAC or APE, you gain the ease of use that an iPod offers and the widespread support of automotive manufacturers where integrating your iPod with your steering wheel controls requires no trickery. The same is true with the iPhone. You get one provider: AT&T. You only get one form factor. But in turn, you get one of the best smart phones on the market. The strengths of a Mac are clear. On the consumer side, iLife remains one of the best consumer multimedia suites ever produced. For years, iLife’s photo slide show capabilities have outclassed anything available on the PC with regard to ease-of-use and the ability to produce fully animated menus. Apple Aperture offers a great alternative to Adobe Lightroom 2 for a lower price while Apple Shake and Final Cut Pro Studio represent true Hollywood-grade applications falling short only of products from Autodesk/discreet. Built-in capabilities to the operating system such as Time Machine make data security a breeze. Keynote remains one of the most sophisticated presentation tools available on the market, and as soon as Pages and Numbers have support for EndNote and Error Bars, I’m confident that the Mac will gain even more traction in the scientific/academic world. Given the option between a PC that can only run Microsoft-branded software and a Mac that can only run Apple-branded software, the easy answer is the Mac (although admittedly, I am using Office 2008 to write this). Even the day-to-day Mac experience is pleasant. When comparing an eight-core system running Windows Vista/Aero, Mac OS X, and Xgl/Compiz; there is no question that Mac OS X offers the subjective feeling of a snappier interface. I’m not sure what it is about Mac OS X that makes it so responsive, but the last system to have the same level of responsiveness was my SGI Octane. The only similarity between Mac OS X and SGI IRIX was the use of Display PDF/Display Postscript and a closed system with tightly controlled hardware support. Vista/Aero may be slower because non-WPF windows are rendered in 2D (even though the composition is 3D), and Linux driver support lags behind Windows and Mac OS X (DRI2 may change things). In addition, recent benchmarks show that Mac OS X offers superior power management compared to Windows Vista (Anandtech), and in general, offers superior raw performance to Ubuntu Linux (Phoronix). With Mac OS X, you get style and substance.

• Laptops aside, things could be different for desktop machines. We set to find out by customizing an exact system in as many aspects as possible to a baseline Apple Mac Pro, which costs a hefty $2799. We tried to cut costs in our PC wherever we could without sacrificing quality, and also tried to pick components that would closely match Apple’s offering. Here’s what we came up with on Newegg: The Mac Clone Custom built PC to orderMatched to baseline Mac Pro Supermicro MBD-X7DWE-O Dual LGA 771$429.99 Intel Xeon X3360 Yorkfield 2.83GHz x 2$1109.98 Kingston HyperX 2 GB ECC FB-DIMM $134.99 Seagate Barracuda 320 GB SATA 3.0$79.99 Sapphire Radeon HD 2600XT 256 MB$34.99 Creative Sound Blaster Audigy SE 7.1$27.99 Cirago BTA Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR USB$9.99 SYBA 1394a FireWire400 Controller$12.99 SYBA 1394b FireWire800 Controller$29.95 on outletpc.com Lite-On DL-DVD Burner$23.99 Lian-Li PC-A71A Aluminum Full Tower$229.99 Thermaltake Toughpower W0155RU$319.99 Keytronic E06101USBC Keyboard$38.99 Microsoft Wheel Mouse Optical OEM$11.99 Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate$277.49 Total price$2773.33 Price difference$5.67 The above is essentially a baseline Mac Pro replicated using the cheapest minimum required components to build. The difference? A negligible $5.67. Those who claim that they can build "the same" PC for half the price are at this point baseless. Also note that the Mac Pro will ship with iLife ’08. Personally, I don’t use it. So I don’t need it. However, I know many people that do use it to create websites and manage their pictures. Windows Vista kinda comes with tools to manage photos, and such, but there’s no integration with online services. There are obviously (or not) several reasons why Mac hardware is more expensive than the PC equivalent. First off, they’re all meticulously designed. Apple’s entire line-up all have the same look and feel, and everything feels coherent. There’s a theme to everything. Of course, this isn’t for everyone. Not everyone likes the Apple look and feel, and not everyone really cares about it either. The point is, there are people out there who just get very upset when talking about the other platform. Relax! No one’s forcing anyone to buy something they don’t want to buy anyway. This goes for both PC and Mac users alike. The problem with the Mac Pro in particular is that it’s base hardware configuration is imbalanced. Massive processing power, but limp graphics and hard drive offerings. Apple needs to launch a Mac tower, with components in line with the iMac, which would prove to be more sensible and popular as well as more affordable. Interested buyers would then have an option of an expandable machine that’s not priced at Mac Pro levels. Apple’s much smaller than say a Dell or a HP, and some of the pricing is reflected in this fact as well — although not much. Apple’s high prices are a matter of being "premium." Apple really isn’t out there to only sell a bunch of computers. It is out there to market a certain computing life-style. Where all your media devices and things you may do with a computer are tied together in an easy to use and manage methodology. The company definitely wants to distinguish itself from say Dell or HP or your brick and mortar PC builder. This is the same for Voodoo PC. Why go through the order with an expensive Voodoo or Alienware computer when you can build one for way less? Because of the cool-factor. Don’t get me started on how many people actually own these systems. The answer is a lot. Otherwise, those two firms and others like them wouldn’t be so popular.