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

So long and thanks for all the bits

ncsc.gov.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 82 posts

Re: So long and thanks for all the bits

#61

Post by lmm »

travisgriggs wrote: post #23

As a pilot, loved the B17 bit. I am intrigued by the memory safety section. It’s a hot topic these days, right? So here’s an interesting thought experiment. What if all these areas where we use memory-unsafe technologies were replaced by memory managed technologies like C#, Python, Go, etc. Sure, lots of things would run slower (raw TLS in Python, yay), BUT would there suddenly just be less exploits? Or is this area…

> What if all these areas where we use memory-unsafe technologies were replaced by memory managed technologies like C#, Python, Go, etc. Sure, lots of things would run slower (raw TLS in Python, yay), BUT would there suddenly just be less exploits?

Yes. We'd see at least a 30% reduction in exploits, and in the overwhelming majority of use cases the slowdown wouldn't be relevant. Software in those areas would also get written a lot quicker.

The trouble is that there's no incentive to do this, at any level. Software would probably crash more (because one of the biggest ways memory-safe languages avoid security issues is by turning silent corruption into visible crashes). No-one cares if you deliver the project in 50% less time than it would otherwise take (you're still missing the schedule), but everyone cares if it's 50% slower on a meaningless microbenchmark. And C bros no longer get to slap each other on the back about what l33t h4x0rs they are. (I suspect, cynically, that one of the reasons Rust is the language that's finally getting to replace C, is that it's that rarest of memory-safe languages that puts an equal amounts of (mostly) pointless difficulty on the programmer).

Re: So long and thanks for all the bits

#63

Post by mwint »

This is kind of scary:

> one problem (in my opinion) is that it’s too easy to set up free hosting for your cybercrime site. There’s no friction and no risk to dissuade would-be-crims.

Sounds like an Inbound TCP License is next on the UK’s to-do list?

Re: So long and thanks for all the bits

#64

Post by animatedb »

travisgriggs wrote: post #23

As a pilot, loved the B17 bit. I am intrigued by the memory safety section. It’s a hot topic these days, right? So here’s an interesting thought experiment. What if all these areas where we use memory-unsafe technologies were replaced by memory managed technologies like C#, Python, Go, etc. Sure, lots of things would run slower (raw TLS in Python, yay), BUT would there suddenly just be less exploits? Or is this area…

I want the hardware to protect me perhaps with a key or handle or something. Talking to the hardware: Give me a block of memory that I can append to the end of. Another piece of code: Allow me to access that other block for read only. Each piece of software has some sort of identification. Then the hardware throws an interrupt if a piece of software uses some memory incorrectly.

Re: So long and thanks for all the bits

#65

Post by lelandfe »

pmarreck wrote: post #48
Arrath wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were some choices gif/memes to come out of that, though like the top one here: https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a...

omg, that gif is triggering me. I CANNOT STAND UI's that are interactable before they have completed their layout rendering! Or things like notifications that suddenly push everything down, right when you were about to tap on one of those elements! Why is this still a thing? Any UI element that shifts or appears should have like a user-adjustable half-second delay before it becomes interactable again

Former frontend performance guy here – "Cumulative Layout Shift" is the measure of this jank, and yes, it is the absolute worst.

Conversely, it's hard to overstate how magical sites become when you get that down to 0. Once stuff stops shifting, users are effectively fooled into believing that sites are finished loading. Sites just feel fast, even if things are still happening. It's sadly hard to get there, and very easily worsens.

Re: So long and thanks for all the bits

#66

Post by warmwaffles »

mwint wrote: post #63

This is kind of scary: > one problem (in my opinion) is that it’s too easy to set up free hosting for your cybercrime site. There’s no friction and no risk to dissuade would-be-crims. Sounds like an Inbound TCP License is next on the UK’s to-do list?

> This sounds like an Inbound TCP License is next on the UK’s list?

Make sure you have a license for those bits.

Re: So long and thanks for all the bits

#67

Post by _carbyau_ »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #32

The comments about Heartbleed and OpenSSL suggest (to me) his behind the scenes thinking: Airplanes don't fall out of the sky because transport safety boards do the analysis and the manufacturers follow their advice - the idea is only one planet crashes per type of mistake. Well it's hard to get a group of open source developers to follow cleanroom techniques for free. I am guessing that the thinking is to fund the i…

You don't have to fund every OSS group. But maybe someone should think about funding the right ones.

Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2347/

The only issue is who funds them all? UK? US? China? UN? Some body similar to WHO but for cyber?

Re: So long and thanks for all the bits

#68

Post by mjb »

bombcar wrote: post #42
CamperBob2 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl was very different, due to the negligence factor. "Hold my vodka and watch THIS" is no way to run a nuclear power plant.

I guess they're arguing that the "fail deadly" design was a design flaw, even if it should never have been encountered in actual operation.

Indeed. See "Why INSAG has still got it wrong" by Anatoly Dyatlov himself. The money quote:

> How and why should the operators have compensated for design errors they did not know about?

Dyatlov is clearly biased here, but he raises excellent questions.

Re: So long and thanks for all the bits

#69

Post by bigiain »

lmm wrote: post #60
pmarreck wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

omg, that gif is triggering me. I CANNOT STAND UI's that are interactable before they have completed their layout rendering! Or things like notifications that suddenly push everything down, right when you were about to tap on one of those elements! Why is this still a thing? Any UI element that shifts or appears should have like a user-adjustable half-second delay before it becomes interactable again

I suspect the real reason it's still a thing is that it makes users more likely to click on ads, which is after all how most of the internet makes its money.

"The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads." -- Jeff Hammerbacher

Re: So long and thanks for all the bits

#70

Post by bigiain »

happymellon wrote: post #21
jhauris wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a reference to "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Knowing Earth was going to be destroyed the dolphins leave, but they leave behind a message which when decoded translates to "so long and thanks for all the fish" (referring to how dolphins had trained humans to give them a fish when they did tricks).

> Knowing Earth was going to be destroyed the dolphins leave, but they leave behind a message He thinks that the UK is going to implode? Probably correct even if it is mostly harmless.

> He thinks that the UK is going to implode?

Arguably, it's in the middle of doing so right now...

Post reply on HN