• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Cold Boot to Virtual Machine

T

Thomas M.

Flightless Bird
XP SP3

I am looking for a solution that will allow me to seemlessly cold boot my PC
into a virtual machine. I am currently using XP SP3, but I would be
interested in solutions for XP, Vista, and Windows 7. Are there any software
solutions out there will can provide this functionality for these operating
systems?

I would also be interested in hearing about what people like in terms of
software to mount virtual hard drives.

--
Thanks for any help that you can offer!

--Tom
 
V

VanguardLH

Flightless Bird
Thomas M. wrote:

> XP SP3
>
> I am looking for a solution that will allow me to seemlessly cold boot my PC
> into a virtual machine. I am currently using XP SP3, but I would be
> interested in solutions for XP, Vista, and Windows 7. Are there any software
> solutions out there will can provide this functionality for these operating
> systems?
>
> I would also be interested in hearing about what people like in terms of
> software to mount virtual hard drives.


So what is it that you really want to do? Currently you are probably
booting Windows and then manually loading a virtual machine. "Cold boot
a PC into a virtual machine" is a completely different animal. That
means you want to load a hypervisor first and then load an OS.
Microsoft has their HyperV product (free for personal use) that runs all
operatings systems as guests in a virtual machine. I've never used it
to know if it can be configured to automatically load some of its
defined VMs.

However, do you have the hardware requirements for HyperV? Besides the
memory needed for HyperV (which is an OS itself), you will need the
amount of memory that you want for each virtual machine that you will be
running concurrently. You'll also need a very fast CPU to accomodate
the load of the VMs. Since the Windows XP would be running in a VM, and
because all hardware is probably emulated (except the CPU), you probably
can't run graphics intensive apps inside a guest, like games. If HyperV
supports it, having multiple cores where one can be assigned to a VM
allows for a speedier VM. So, for example, you'll probably want a
4-core CPU where you can assign 1 or 2 cores to HyperV and a core for
each VM.

http://www.microsoft.com/hyper-v-server/en/us/default.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-V
 
T

Thomas M.

Flightless Bird
"VanguardLH" wrote:

> Thomas M. wrote:
>
> > XP SP3
> >
> > I am looking for a solution that will allow me to seemlessly cold boot my PC
> > into a virtual machine. I am currently using XP SP3, but I would be
> > interested in solutions for XP, Vista, and Windows 7. Are there any software
> > solutions out there will can provide this functionality for these operating
> > systems?
> >
> > I would also be interested in hearing about what people like in terms of
> > software to mount virtual hard drives.

>
> So what is it that you really want to do? Currently you are probably
> booting Windows and then manually loading a virtual machine. "Cold boot
> a PC into a virtual machine" is a completely different animal. That
> means you want to load a hypervisor first and then load an OS.
> Microsoft has their HyperV product (free for personal use) that runs all
> operatings systems as guests in a virtual machine. I've never used it
> to know if it can be configured to automatically load some of its
> defined VMs.
>
> However, do you have the hardware requirements for HyperV? Besides the
> memory needed for HyperV (which is an OS itself), you will need the
> amount of memory that you want for each virtual machine that you will be
> running concurrently. You'll also need a very fast CPU to accomodate
> the load of the VMs. Since the Windows XP would be running in a VM, and
> because all hardware is probably emulated (except the CPU), you probably
> can't run graphics intensive apps inside a guest, like games. If HyperV
> supports it, having multiple cores where one can be assigned to a VM
> allows for a speedier VM. So, for example, you'll probably want a
> 4-core CPU where you can assign 1 or 2 cores to HyperV and a core for
> each VM.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/hyper-v-server/en/us/default.aspx
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-V


You are correct in that currently I boot into Windows XP, and then load a
virtual machine and wait for it to boot. I want to bypass the first login
and go straight to the virtual machine. In other words, it should look more
or less like a normal boot into Windows, but at the end of the process I end
up in a virtual machine instead of having to start the VM separately.

I realize that this takes some horse power in terms of CPU and memory, but I
should have that on both counts.

Currently, this is just something that I am researching as an option for my
mom's machine. She doesn't do any gaming. She mostly uses email, Word, and
IE for reading news online and ordering from places like Amazon.com. I've
started a project to lock down her machine and I've done a lot in terms of
security already, but I wanted to look into putting her into a virtual
environment as an extra measure of safety. The requirement for booting
directly into the VM is intended to avoid causing her confusion by making it
as transparent to her as possible. I realize that this makes it more complex
to setup, but hopefully the transparency will make it easier for her to use.

My reasoning is that as she ages and becomes more prone to being fooled into
clicking links, she is more likely to have her machine compromised, which
could lead to problems with identity theft and the like. In a virtual
environment, most exploits would vanish when the virtual machine powers off.
I do understand that in a virtual enviroment there can be links through to
the underlying hardware and OS, so going virtual would not eliminate all
security concerns, but it should reduce those concerns considerably.

I don't know if virtualizing to this degree is worth doing on her
machine--maybe it's overkill--but I figured that I wouldn't be able to make
that determination until I understand what it takes to pull off this degree
of virtualization. Once I have a good grip on how this kind of thing can be
achieved, I'll be able to make an educated decision on whether or not it is
worth the effort.

As an aside, I work in IT and so wanted to research this issue in order to
increase my own knowledge and, at least to some small degree, further my
career.

--
Thanks for any help that you can offer!

--Tom
 
C

C.Joseph Drayton

Flightless Bird
On 6/18/2010 12:10 AM, Thomas M. wrote:
> "VanguardLH" wrote:
>
>> Thomas M. wrote:
>>
>>> XP SP3
>>>
>>> I am looking for a solution that will allow me to seemlessly cold boot my PC
>>> into a virtual machine. I am currently using XP SP3, but I would be
>>> interested in solutions for XP, Vista, and Windows 7. Are there any software
>>> solutions out there will can provide this functionality for these operating
>>> systems?
>>>
>>> I would also be interested in hearing about what people like in terms of
>>> software to mount virtual hard drives.

>>
>> So what is it that you really want to do? Currently you are probably
>> booting Windows and then manually loading a virtual machine. "Cold boot
>> a PC into a virtual machine" is a completely different animal. That
>> means you want to load a hypervisor first and then load an OS.
>> Microsoft has their HyperV product (free for personal use) that runs all
>> operatings systems as guests in a virtual machine. I've never used it
>> to know if it can be configured to automatically load some of its
>> defined VMs.
>>
>> However, do you have the hardware requirements for HyperV? Besides the
>> memory needed for HyperV (which is an OS itself), you will need the
>> amount of memory that you want for each virtual machine that you will be
>> running concurrently. You'll also need a very fast CPU to accomodate
>> the load of the VMs. Since the Windows XP would be running in a VM, and
>> because all hardware is probably emulated (except the CPU), you probably
>> can't run graphics intensive apps inside a guest, like games. If HyperV
>> supports it, having multiple cores where one can be assigned to a VM
>> allows for a speedier VM. So, for example, you'll probably want a
>> 4-core CPU where you can assign 1 or 2 cores to HyperV and a core for
>> each VM.
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/hyper-v-server/en/us/default.aspx
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-V

>
> You are correct in that currently I boot into Windows XP, and then load a
> virtual machine and wait for it to boot. I want to bypass the first login
> and go straight to the virtual machine. In other words, it should look more
> or less like a normal boot into Windows, but at the end of the process I end
> up in a virtual machine instead of having to start the VM separately.
>
> I realize that this takes some horse power in terms of CPU and memory, but I
> should have that on both counts.
>
> Currently, this is just something that I am researching as an option for my
> mom's machine. She doesn't do any gaming. She mostly uses email, Word, and
> IE for reading news online and ordering from places like Amazon.com. I've
> started a project to lock down her machine and I've done a lot in terms of
> security already, but I wanted to look into putting her into a virtual
> environment as an extra measure of safety. The requirement for booting
> directly into the VM is intended to avoid causing her confusion by making it
> as transparent to her as possible. I realize that this makes it more complex
> to setup, but hopefully the transparency will make it easier for her to use.
>
> My reasoning is that as she ages and becomes more prone to being fooled into
> clicking links, she is more likely to have her machine compromised, which
> could lead to problems with identity theft and the like. In a virtual
> environment, most exploits would vanish when the virtual machine powers off.
> I do understand that in a virtual enviroment there can be links through to
> the underlying hardware and OS, so going virtual would not eliminate all
> security concerns, but it should reduce those concerns considerably.
>
> I don't know if virtualizing to this degree is worth doing on her
> machine--maybe it's overkill--but I figured that I wouldn't be able to make
> that determination until I understand what it takes to pull off this degree
> of virtualization. Once I have a good grip on how this kind of thing can be
> achieved, I'll be able to make an educated decision on whether or not it is
> worth the effort.
>
> As an aside, I work in IT and so wanted to research this issue in order to
> increase my own knowledge and, at least to some small degree, further my
> career.
>


Hello Thomas,

The statement "In a virtual environment, most exploits would vanish when
the virtual machine powers off." is not quite correct. The VHD (the hard
disk for the virtual machine) would still contain the mal-ware.

I do see what you are trying to accomplish, and I think what might suit
your needs better is something along the lines of Returnil (see web site
below).

http://www.returnilvirtualsystem.com/rvs-home-free

What Returnil does is create a shadow (for lack of a better term)
system. When it is active, nothing is written to your system drive. It
all occurs on the shadow drive. With their system, when you shut down
the computer, the mal-ware is gone. There are a couple of downsides to
this system. The main one is that if you want to REALLY install an
application onto the system drive, you must disable Returnil, do the
install then reactivate Returnil.

The other problem is that some apps write their data to the folder that
the app is installed in, the end result is that the data would also be
lost when you shut down. I do work with people who are NOT computer
friendly and have set up Returnil for them. To make their computer
easier to use, I created a second partition on their disk then re-direct
the "My Documents" folder to the second partition. I also disable
Returnil creating a persistent virtual drive. I then went into each of
their apps and set the default folder to "My Documents".

Note that this is not perfect since some app store their setting in
"Documents and Settings\<user>\Application Data". Applications like
X-Setup Pro can help you to re-direct other need folders that are found
in the user's profile folder.

Sincerely,
C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T

CSD Computer Services

Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/
E-mail: c.joseph@csdcs.site90.net
 
Top