As the risks of running a compromised personal computer (PC) becomes increasingly more expensive to individual computer users (from an identity management and administrative perspective), the day is fast approaching where every computer will come standard with not one, but two hard drives. One drive for the operating system (OS), and yet another for customer applications and data.
The problem with modern day computers, is once they are manufactured and an initial OS is placed on them, they must be connected to the Internet before they can be updated. Even in the short duration of this update, an unprotected PC can quickly acquire numerous viruses negating some of the benefit of applying future updates to the PC’s OS. In various tests on the Internet, an unprotected PC can become infected in as few as 12 minutes but no longer than 20 minutes. Interestingly, ~20 minutes is about the amount of time required to complete an initial update of Microsoft Windows XP or Vista upon purchasing it new.
Thereafter, the challenge of keeping the OS free of bots and viruses represents a near futile battle. Most virus software is at best only 60-70% effective. In light of this, how does the average person keep their PC free of viruses and bots. First way is to have extensive protection on email - the principle transport of viruses.
The other way would be for the PC to have two disk drives. One drive for the OS, and the other for the user applications and all their data.
In this way, the image of the principle drive (containing the OS) could be backed up such that if it ever did get infected, the user could easily restore their original factory image without changing their applications, configurations, or data. Similarly, a user’s data could be backed up separately such that this information could be more carefully screened for infectious material.
Using OS disk isolution, would solve a great many things for PCs. Currently all applications and user data are woven together with the OS creating a honey pot that is very attractive to serious hackers. Essentially breaking a single PC’s defenses likely yields a significant portion of other PCs as well. If the OS were isolated from applications and user data (using two disk drives - one for OS and the other for user data and applications) a single OS update from Linux, Microsoft, or Apple would have significantly more impact that it currently does.
The key is the separation of OS from user data and from the applications the user elects to install and use. Today, all these are co-mingled on a single disk drive making it increasingly complex to identify a virus or bot from an actual component of the OS - not to mention doing something about it (like removing it). In fact, the most damaging code looks harmless until all the pieces fall in place. There is also very little protection about what applications are run at start up or run when certain applications are launched. This would be easier if OS and all its associated applications where separate and distinct from user applications which arguably should be certified by the OS manufacturer before they can run on the OS. Just another way to keep foreign applications from gaining OS cycles.
Having a remote image, could represent a single image for all computers that remains the same and could be updated by the OS developer (Apple, Linux, Microsoft, Sun, etc.). So, rather than providing initial access to the entire Internet, the default for NEW PCs would be to first “phone home” for their current remote disk image and update themselves to the absolute latest disk image (which contains all the latest patches etc.). Until they obtain this latest and greatest image, the PC would represent a closed shop (no active ports) and would be otherwise useless to the outside world. Upon upgrading its image, the PC’s disk image would look like any other image of any other PC out there, the PC would recognize its other hard drive and allow loading of 3rd party applications and user data. However, no other data or applications would be allowed to write to the OS disk. Only the OS manufacturer could update this disk.
While such power given to the OS manufacturer is risky, it pales in comparison to the risk of co-mingling OS, applications, and user data as we all know what results when that happens. With great power comes great risk - so users must give up some control to get back some kind of security and OS stability.
