reply to post by VonDoomen
There are indeed benefits to a proprietary OS from a security stand point.
There are, however, also drawbacks, namely accountability and support. Whoever develops the OS would be accountable for its operation, and, well,
they'd be relied on a little too heavily for a truly secure system. If anything happened to the developer(s), then, well, you're screwed and can't
get at your own data if there's a break.
A Linux, or Unix flavor solution running on proprietary hardware would be the best practice route; providing security, and a larger knowledge base
pool of recruitment for administration.
Then again, in consideration of OS running on satellites, the space shuttle, ISS, probes we've sent out, major telescope systems, LHC, military jets,
tanks, ships, submarines, missile systems, and many more, these all have custom code written specifically for their hardware, so, for a place like
Area 51 (real & imagined versions), a proprietary OS running on proprietary hardware is not only not a far fetched idea, but, a higher probability
than any other.
Further, regarding something mentioned about a DOS attack, how is anyone going to run a DOS on something that already lives completely unconnected
offline behind several layers of physical security already? Physical DOS is actually part of the security in barring access to everyone but those
with clearance to have access.
Information security is about so much more than simple one dimensional strategies like encryption and only encryption. Physical access, control and
accountability of control over that access, all the elements of disaster recovery and planning, and many other folds take part.
Possibly one of the best, most secure systems for data security right now, would be a simple box of paper documents under 20 dozen layers of lock and
key, automatic, and human security systems. Try hacking that without an army at your back.