71–80 of 296 posts
The objective of computer security seems to have shifted from preventing someone else from running unauthoirzed software on your computer to preventing you from running unauthorized software on your computer. I would not describe this as security.
Sorry if I got your point wrong :)
The objective of computer security seems to have shifted from preventing someone else from running unauthoirzed software on your computer to preventing you from running unauthorized software on your computer. I would not describe this as security.
The people who work on fuchsia are very good engineers - I’ve worked with many of them in person. But the project itself has always been a staff retention project. It only existed to keep said engineers from going to a competitor. I don’t know how any understanding of fuchsia is possible without this crucial fact
Does that mean you don't believe it's going to replace Android/AOSP? It's in some Nest devices right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. Is this in practice implemented as just capabilities being large numbers so it's impractical to guess them, or does the kernel have a table with all of a process's capabilities and when a message is sent to a process with capabilities the kernel adds them to the table? That is -- are capabilities just pieces of data in a message you can detect and try to use, or do they have to be added explicitly to a m…
In theory you could do even better than that -- you could make capabilities cryptographically signed tokens, so that you don't need to ask the kernel to verify the validity of your request every time. If your chipset supports crypto intrinsics this will almost certainly be better than an interrupted syscall.
The objective of computer security seems to have shifted from preventing someone else from running unauthoirzed software on your computer to preventing you from running unauthorized software on your computer. I would not describe this as security.
I would guess you have never worked as a technical suppport for your family’s computers? Because even if I very much understand your point, not being able to run untrusted code absolutely is a security advancement in certain situations. It is SO refreshing and liberating to be able to say: Do whatever you want with it, it’s very hard to damage on the software side.
The objective of computer security seems to have shifted from preventing someone else from running unauthoirzed software on your computer to preventing you from running unauthorized software on your computer. I would not describe this as security.
The ability to sandbox software (with a lot of effort) means that you can run software you don’t trust. The web is built on this.
The objective of computer security seems to have shifted from preventing someone else from running unauthoirzed software on your computer to preventing you from running unauthorized software on your computer. I would not describe this as security.
I would guess you have never worked as a technical suppport for your family’s computers? Because even if I very much understand your point, not being able to run untrusted code absolutely is a security advancement in certain situations. It is SO refreshing and liberating to be able to say: Do whatever you want with it, it’s very hard to damage on the software side.
The objective of computer security seems to have shifted from preventing someone else from running unauthoirzed software on your computer to preventing you from running unauthorized software on your computer. I would not describe this as security.