Microsoft no longer signs Windows drivers for Process Hacker • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft no longer signs Windows drivers for Process Hacker

#541

Post by ryanlol » Wed, Oct 27, 2021, 3:11 PM UTC

cma wrote: post #530

ryanlol wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is completely ridiculous. Epic agreed to not sign certain software, but they did. Epic promised not to do certain things, but they decided to break that promise. You can call that a “business dispute”, but that doesn’t portray Epic as any less untrustworthy. Epic obviously can’t be trusted to not abuse their signing keys. Why should Apple allow a known untrustworthy party to sign OS X apps? Honestly, the idea th…

You are talking about unrelated mobile business dispute stuff. Desktop key signing was for security only. Mobile payment things challenging a monopoly force are totally unrelated. Apple even promised: security only for keys on desktop, none of their iOS control games.

I am talking about abuse of signing keys by Epic, not about “mobile payment things challening a monopoly force”.

Your PR spin does not change the important facts. Why epic did what they did is completely irrelevant.

Re: Microsoft no longer signs Windows drivers for Process Hacker

#542

Post by craftinator » Fri, Oct 29, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

Oddskar wrote: post #513

craftinator wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/6145 My favorite part is when someone figures out "telemetry" includes the MAC address, and the dev team just goes completely silent.

You forgot a pretty relevant part: Hashed MAC address: a cryptographically (SHA256) anonymous and unique ID for a machine. Although I disagree that they should have this to begin with, it being anonymized is still a pretty important detail.

The important part of them having the MAC address is that it IS a unique ID. If it wasn't a unique ID, then it wouldn't matter if they had it, because their purpose in taking it is to identify you. So whether it's hashed or not is completely irrelevant.

The fact that they are taking uniquely identifiable information from you, and the fact that their company is as deep in the Ad game as Google, is more than damning enough.

Re: Microsoft no longer signs Windows drivers for Process Hacker

#543

Post by abcd_f » Wed, Nov 03, 2021, 12:23 PM UTC

cesarb wrote: post #396

abcd_f wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a grade A bullshit, with a strong smell of marketing spin to it. If a program crashes on an older CPU, it damn sure will crash on a modern CPU just as well.

> If a program crashes on an older CPU, it damn sure will crash on a modern CPU just as well. Not necessarily; if the crash is caused by an instruction that's absent on older CPUs (for instance, trying to use an AVX2 instruction when the most the CPU has is SSE2), it will work on a modern CPU but crash on an older CPU.

Taken to the extreme, that’d be on par with an exe having a valid PE header but random noise for the code.

If foo can be launched on a platform that it’s not meant for, it’s an issue with foo, not the platform.