Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft open-sources Graph Engine

graphengine.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 192 posts

Re: Microsoft open-sources Graph Engine

#171

Post by rasz_pl »

WayneBro wrote: post #39
Kipters wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to elaborate on the HTTP part? You just need the "Internet (client)" capability in your manifest, it's even enabled by default when you create a new project Moreover, win32 desktop apps can use the AppService mechanism exposed by UWP apps (but cannot host an AppService themselves, just connect to UWP-hosted AppServices)

Give it a try. You can't send requests to `localhost` or `127.0.0.1` at all. AppService is largely useless for IPC between UWP and Win32 since the UWP app can't initiate a request to the Win32 app. Another thing you can't do, which is really annoying: UWP won't let your code start an external process and use standard i/o pipes to communicate with it. The only possibility is to use files for IPC and you'd have to have…

>http://loopback.codeplex.com/

is there anything like this, but working the other way around? I want to be able to forbid ordinary Win32 programs from accessing loopback/localhost.

Re: Microsoft open-sources Graph Engine

#172

Post by [deleted] »

3825 wrote: post #163
dagw wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Win 10 was free. It was a time limited free upgrade for people who already had a valid windows license. I don't think it it was free.

I had the same misunderstanding as well. However, I think they ought keep Windows 10 Insider program available to everyone free of cost and without having to pay for a license. I feel like this will fall on deaf ears though. Microsoft watchers say Windows already treats stable as a testbed for the enterprise users who withhold updates for n days. So, a new update shows up without much testing, breaks a bunch of stuff…

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft open-sources Graph Engine

#173

Post by prirun »

dingo_bat wrote: post #160
digitalzombie wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At this rate, are we going to see Windows open-sourced? Doubt it. In my personal opinion, they're just playing catch up and trying to grab a piece of the pie in the Server space that opensource have been gobbling up. Linux got web server, cloud, scientific computing, big data (hadoop, spark, etc..), etc... I believe they're releasing these open source so they can get people on their Azure cloud and get people into…

> I do not think they will give up Window for free Win 10 was free.

So was Microsoft Office when they were trying to put Lotus, Wordperfect, and every other word processor and spreadsheet out of business. And they succeeded. Follow the pied piper boys and girls...

Re: Microsoft open-sources Graph Engine

#175

Post by pedasmith »

rasz_pl wrote: post #170
pedasmith wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey! I didn't implement the loopback restriction in WinRT, but I sure was one of the PMs in the network team when it happened. As it turns out, pretty much everyone on the thread is right. Localhost is special on a network: it's the only machine that that you're guaranteed actually exists, and is therefore qualified as a high-value target for the bad guys. I hadn't heard about the printer creating a local HTTP server…

How about approaching this from the other end - reengineer windows filtering to allow control of localhost traffic.

Because how would an ordinary person every make the right choice? How would any kind of anti-virus every tell the difference between a "good" program that's connecting to an embedded web server in an appropriate way, and a "bad" one that's intended to take over the system?

Most other checkbox security choices at least can be explained. A word processor probably doesn't have any legitimate reason to use Bluetooth (for example), and therefore a customer has a chance of making a reasonable choice.

But for localhost access -- my word, there's no rhyme or reason for it. As a simple example, I worked on a statistical package back in the 90's (yay RS/1!) that was implemented as two programs on Windows. One was the GUI client and the other the statistical server. There's nothing about "statistics" that obviously screams, "must have localhost permissions" :-)

Re: Microsoft open-sources Graph Engine

#176

Post by manigandham »

kriro wrote: post #167
manigandham wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MS was definitely not becoming irrelevant. The vast majority of enterprise software is written in .NET and the MS stack runs millions of businesses. They are evolving the framework to be faster and cross-platform based on external pressures but in the last few years they have managed to overtake several of the other language/framework options to again be one of the top choices for new projects. They aren't catching u…

"""The vast majority of enterprise software is written in .NET""" I'm only familiar with one domain of enterprise software and that's ERP software. I'd like to see a %age number for "vast majority" but let's just say I'm struggling to think of ERP software based on the .NET stack outside of the Microsoft products (which are not exactly a success story). SAP is based on Java/ABAP, Oracle is based on Java, Salesforce i…

> I'm only familiar with one domain of enterprise software and that's ERP software.

That's the issue. I'm not talking about ERP (or any other) software offered by vendors. Many corporations build their in-house line of business/ERP/backend apps in .NET.

Re: Microsoft open-sources Graph Engine

#177

Post by [deleted] »

pedasmith wrote: post #175
rasz_pl wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about approaching this from the other end - reengineer windows filtering to allow control of localhost traffic.

Because how would an ordinary person every make the right choice? How would any kind of anti-virus every tell the difference between a "good" program that's connecting to an embedded web server in an appropriate way, and a "bad" one that's intended to take over the system? Most other checkbox security choices at least can be explained. A word processor probably doesn't have any legitimate reason to use Bluetooth (for…

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft open-sources Graph Engine

#178

Post by rasz_pl »

pedasmith wrote: post #175
rasz_pl wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about approaching this from the other end - reengineer windows filtering to allow control of localhost traffic.

Because how would an ordinary person every make the right choice? How would any kind of anti-virus every tell the difference between a "good" program that's connecting to an embedded web server in an appropriate way, and a "bad" one that's intended to take over the system? Most other checkbox security choices at least can be explained. A word processor probably doesn't have any legitimate reason to use Bluetooth (for…

Because you currently ship systems with firewall that is unable to filter outbound traffic per application. DnsCache bypasses filtering by effectively providing tunnel between localhost and external network interface. Maybe you know of a way to selectively limit access to DnsCache per application? effectively whitelist a couple and block the rest?

Ordinary person argument is flawed. So called ordinary person doesnt even know what a network card is.

Re: Microsoft open-sources Graph Engine

#179

Post by amluto »

poizan42 wrote: post #165
amluto wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

vDSO maintainer here. > Curiously the recommended syscall mechanism on x86 is by calling __kernel_vsyscall in the vDSO. There are times when this doesn't work. Syscall resumption and cancellation come to mind. Also, __kernel_vsyscall is a hack to make fast syscalls work on the awful 32-bit x86 architecture, not a nice feature. > it would have been fantastic if calling through the vDSO had simply been the only documen…

> There are times when this doesn't work. Syscall resumption and cancellation come to mind. Also, __kernel_vsyscall is a hack to make fast syscalls work on the awful 32-bit x86 architecture, not a nice feature. It's a pretty nice feature in the context of being able to make compatibility layers on other OS'ses in userspace which was the discussion here. Or would be if it was always used. Why doesn't it work for sysca…

> It's a pretty nice feature in the context of being able to make compatibility layers on other OS'ses in userspace which was the discussion here. Or would be if it was always used. Why doesn't it work for syscall resumption and cancellation?

For resumption, a signal that interrupts a resumable syscall points RIP to an explicit int 80 instruction in the vDSO. This behavior would be a bit unfriendly to emulate.

For cancellation, the only good implementation of cancellation that I'm aware of (musl's) relies on syscalls being an actual atomic instruction so that a signal handler can tell whether a syscall actually happened. __kernel_vsyscall is an opaque function and can't be used like this.

> Yes but why would I want to make a linux compatibility layer on linux?

For sandboxing? For experimentation? Or how about to make a compatibility layer emulating something else that runs on Linux?

Re: Microsoft open-sources Graph Engine

#180

Post by webmaven »

scott_karana wrote: post #72
webmaven wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft of 2017 makes me forget about Microsoft of 1997. Never Forget.

If I may paraphrase: "Never forget that large monopolies can wield disgusting influence, but don't let hate for past monopolies blind you to modern monopolies either" :-)

> don't let hate for past monopolies blind you to modern monopolies either

Just because Microsoft is no longer the monopoly-du-jour, doesn't mean they aren't still a monopoly...

Just because they have been making (successful) forays into open-source, does not mean they won't still fiercely protect (with whatever means at their disposal) their monopoly cash cows (Windows and Office).

The "standartization" of Office Open XML wasn't all that long ago, after all (ECMA in 2006, ISO in 2008).

Post reply on HN