The thing is, "better" is an ambiguous word. I can change a program in some way and make it smaller. I can change it in some other way and make it faster. Both are "better", but in different ways. More often than not, however, you can't have both smaller and faster - or else your are just fixing a performance bug. Often even improving one property makes some other property less good, as you can see in the numerous "pick two" rules.
So "better" means "more specialized" more often that it means "more optimized". I don't say it is a bad thing per se, but it is best to keep in mind that they are two types of improvement, fixes and specializations, because the latter is a commitment.
This reminds me of a comment I read here a long time ago; it was about XML and how DTDs were supposed to permit one to be strict. However, in reality, the person said, if the the other end who is sending you broken XML is a big corp who refuses to fix it, then you have no choice but accept it.
Bottom line: it's all a matter of balance of powers. If you're the smaller guy in the equation, you'll be "Postel'ed" anyway.
Yet Postel's law is still in the "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" category, for the reason you explain very well (AKA XKCD #1172 "Workflow"). Wikipedia even lists a couple of major critics about it [1].
Would be tempted to stick a proxy in there that checks if the data is malformed in the expected way, and if so converts it to the valid form before forwarding to the real service.
It depends on how your timers are implemented. If they are implemented as a "rendez-vous" absolute date (as in UTC for instance - not in local time unless you want to add "eastern eggs" related to daylight saving time...), this will cause bugs. If you implement your own in-game monotonic clock that you can stop, it should be ok.
>If they are implemented as a "rendez-vous" absolute date
Do people actually do that? What's the plan for when the user sleeps their machine? All the events just inexplicably happen all at once when they wake it?
I've implemented timers that had timeouts using unix timestamps, but only for multiplayer - when a player's attempt to connect to the server times out, etc.
Inside the game loop, we would keep the global tick counter that incremented on every tick, and timeouts would be based on that rather than on UTC.
The tick counter was updated only when the game logic was actually running. Our approach to pausing was to not run the functions that handled frame updates or physics updates, and to only run the rendering functions.
Generally we would never care about actual world time other than for some timeouts like for network (as the time passes for everyone), or for easter eggs like changing the tree models for Christmas or so.
I don't think anyone serious would implement event timers based on real time.
That's sort of the point TFA. You make implementation choices that feel OK and then the time comes to implement the "trivial" pause function...
In other domains, adding the delta time of your main loop to your timers can cause (logical) clock drifts in the long term because of resolution errors.
Remember, all improvements are changes, but most changes aren't improvements. The trick that makes evolution works is this: out of lots of random changes, most of which are harmful, the harmful ones tend to be weeded out and the useful ones tend to spread.
There's a negligible amount of "power users" among government employees; I think the majority of them are trained in reading and applying laws, and given the strong scientific/literary divide in the French culture, they usually think of themselves as inapt with computers (and the erratic behavior of MS products didn't help, if you ask me).
But knowing France, what to really worry about is execution, in particular for administrations. Probably people working there who read the TFA already think "oh, big mess incoming" even though they don't know what this "Linux" thing is.
I think standard IT/sysadmin training focuses mainly on Windows server etc., Linux being a second class citizen (because that's what the vast majority of small/mid sized businesses use). So recruiting good Linux sysadmins could be an issue, especially since the wages in government agencies are not exactly attractive.
I don't know about executable signing, but in the embedded world SecureBoot is also used to serve the customer; id est provide guarantees to the customer that the firmware of the device they receive has not been tampered with at some point in the supply chain.
If you install Windows first, Microsoft takes control (but it graciously allows Linux distros to use their key). If you install Linux first, you take control.
It's perfectly possible for you to maintain your own fully-secure trust chain, including a TPM setup which E.G. lets you keep a 4-digit pin while keeping your system secure against brute force attacks. You can't do that with the 1990s "encryption is all you need" style of system security.
It's funny, but I just encountered this for the first time the other day - feels like I had to do a lot of digging to find out how to do this so that I could add my LUKS key to my TPM... really felt like it took some doing on the HP all-in-one that I was trying to put debian on... maybe because it was debian being debian
Yes, BIOS is really a PC-thing, AFAIK. Embedded processors have "bootloaders" which often serve a similar purpose of performing the minimal viable hardware initializations in order to load the OS kernel.
I make the analogy with a company, because on that front, ownership seems to matter a lot in the Western world. It's like it had to have unfaithful management appointed by another company they're a customer of, as a condition to use their products. Worse, said provider is also a provider for every other business, and their products are not interoperable. How long before courts jump in to prevent this and give back control to the business owner?
This gets tricky. If I click on a link intending to view a picture of a cat, but instead it installs ransomware, is that abiding by its owner or not? It did what I told it to do, but not at all what I wanted.
We dont need to get philosophical here. You(the admin) can require you (the user) to input a password to signify to you(the admin) to install a ransomware when a link is clicked. That way no control is lost.
What if the cat pictures are an app too? The computer can't require a password specifically for ransomware, just for software in general. The UI flow for cat pictures apps and ransomware will be identical.
A computer that can run arbitrary programs can necessarily run malicious ones. Useful operations are often dangerous, and a completely safe computer isn't very useful.
Some sandboxing and a little friction to reduce mistakes is usually wise, but a general-purpose computer that can't be broken through sufficiently determined misuse by its owner is broken as designed.
If you connect your computer to the Internet, it can get hacked. If you leave it logged in unattended or don't use authentication, someone else can use it without your permission.
This isn't rocket science and it has nothing to do with artificially locking down a computer to serve the vendor instead of the owner.
Edit: I'd like to add that no amount of extra warranty from the vendors are going to cover the risk of a malware infection.
And what if that customer wants to run their own firmware, ie after the manufacturer goes out of business? "Security" in this case conveniently prevente that.
Well, that's a different market. What I say is that there are markets in which customers wants to be sure that the firmware is from "us".
And those markets are certainly not IoT gizmos, which I suspect induce some knee-jerk reactions and I understand that cause I'm a consumer too.
But big/serious customers actually look at the wealthiness of the company they buy from, and would certainly consider running their own firmware on someone else's product; they buy off-the-shelf products because it's not their domain of expertise (software development and/or whatever the device does), most of the times.
It's fair to think of secure boot in only the PC context but the model very much extends to phones. It seems ridiculous to me that to use a coupon for a big mac I have to compromise on what features my phone can run (either by turning on secure boot and limiting myself to stock os or limiting myself to the features and pricing of the 1 or 2 phones that allow re-locking).
And the PC situation is only a leftover due to historical circumstances that will be "corrected" in due time. Microsoft already tried this once with their ARM devices.
Where is this "extremely well documented process" to enroll new signing keys on an embedded device? I don't see one for any of these embedded processors with secure boot.
2. Someone malicious close to the customer, an angry ex, tampers with their device, and uses the lack of Secure Boot to modify the OS to hide all trace of a tracker's existence, or
3. A malicious piece of firmware uses the lack of Secure Boot to modify the boot partition to ensure the malware loads before the OS, thereby permanently disabling all ability for the system to repair itself from within itself
Apple uses #2 and #3 in their own arguments. If your Mac gets hacked, that's bad. If your iPhone gets hacked, that's your life, and your precise location, at all times.
As an embedded programmer in my former life, the number of customers that had the capability of running their own firmware, let alone the number that actually would, rapidly approaches zero. Like it or not, what customers bought was an appliance, not a general purpose computer.
(Even if, in some cases, it as just a custom-built SBC running BusyBox, customers still aren't going to go digging through a custom network stack).
The customers don't have to install the firmware themselves, they can have a friend do it or pay a repair shop. You know, just like they can with non-computerized tools that they don't fully understand.
I’m not talking about your buddy’s Android phone, the context was embedded systems with firmware you’re not going to find on xda developers. A “friend” isn’t going to know jack shit about installing firmware on an industrial control.
The argument is that P(customer wants to run their own firmware) cancels out and 2,3 are just the raw probability of you on the receiving end of an evil maid attack. If you think this is a high probability, a locked bootloader won’t save you.
Very neat, but 1) is not really P(customer wants to run their own firmware), but P(customer wants to run their own firmware on their own device).
So, the first term in 1) and 2) are NOT the same, and it is quite conceivable that the probability of 2) is indeed higher than the one in 1) (which your pseudo-statistical argument aimed to refute, unsuccessfully).
As if the monetary gain of 2 and 3 never entered the picture. Malicious actors want 2 and 3 to make money off you! No one can make reasonable amounts of money off 1.
I encourage you to re-evaluate this. How many devices do you (or have you) own which have have a microcontroller? (This includes all your appliances, your clocks, and many things you own which use electricity.) How many of these have you reflashed with custom firmware?
Imagine any of your friends, family, or colleagues. (Including some non-programmers/hackers/embedded-engineers) What would their answers be?
On Android, according to the Coalition Against Stalkerware, there are over 1 million victims of deliberately placed spyware on an unlocked device by a malicious user close to the victim every year.
#2 is WAY more likely than #1. And that's on Android which still has some protections even with a sideloaded APK (deeply nested, but still detectable if you look at the right settings panels).
As for #3; the point is that it's a virus. You start with a webkit bug, you get into kernel from there (sometimes happens); but this time, instead of a software update fixing it, your device is owned forever. Literally cannot be trusted again without a full DFU wipe.
And where are the stats for people running their own firmware and are not running stalkerware for comparison? You don’t need firmware access to install malware on Android, so how many of stalkerware victims actually would have been saved by a locked bootloader?
The entirety of GrapheneOS is about 200K downloads per update. Malicious use therefore is roughly 5-1.
> You don’t need firmware access to install malware on Android, so how many of stalkerware victims actually would have been saved by a locked bootloader?
With a locked bootloader, the underlying OS is intact, meaning that the privileges of the spyware (if you look in the right settings panel) can easily be detected, revoked, and removed. If the OS could be tampered with, you bet your wallet the spyware would immediately patch the settings system, and the OS as a whole, to hide all traces.
Assuming that we accept your premise that the most popular custom firmware for Android is stalkerware (I don’t). This is of course, a firmware level malware, which of course acts as a rootkit and is fully undetectable. How did the coalition against stalkerware, pray tell, manage to detect such an undetectable firmware level rootkit on over 1 million Android devices?
> The entirety of GrapheneOS is about 200K downloads per update. Malicious use therefore is roughly 5-1.
Can you stop this bad faith bullshit please? "Stalkerware" is an app, not an alternate operating system, according to your own source. You're comparing the number of malicious app installs to the number of installs of a single 3rd party Android OS which is rather niche to begin with.
You don't need to install an alternate operating system to stalk someone. And in fact that's nearly impossible to do without the owner noticing because the act of unlocking the bootloader has always wiped the device.
> The Coalition Against Stalkerware defines stalkerware as software, made available directly to individuals, that enables a remote user to monitor the activities on another user’s device without that user’s consent and without explicit, persistent notification to that user in a manner that may facilitate intimate partner surveillance, harassment, abuse, stalking, and/or violence. Note: we do not consider the device user has given consent when apps merely require physical access to the device, unlocking the device, or logging in with the username and password in order to install the app.
> Some people refer to stalkerware as ‘spouseware’ or ‘creepware’, while the term stalkerware is also sometimes used colloquially to refer to any app or program that does or is perceived to invade one’s privacy; we believe a clear and narrow definition is important given stalkerware’s use in situations of intimate partner abuse. We also note that legitimate apps and other kinds of technology can and often do play a role in such situations.
This assumes a high level of technical skill and effort on the part of the stalkerware author, and ignores the unlocked bootloader scare screen most devices display.
If someone brought me a device they suspected was compromised and it had an unlocked bootloader and they didn't know what an unlocked bootloader, custom ROM, or root was, I'd assume a high probability the OS is malicious.
> And that's on Android which still has some protections even with a sideloaded APK (deeply nested, but still detectable if you look at the right settings panels).
Exactly, secure boot advocates once again completely miss that it doesn't protect against any real threat models.
> 2. Someone malicious close to the customer, an angry ex, tampers with their device, and uses the lack of Secure Boot to modify the OS to hide all trace of a tracker's existence, or
Lol security people are out of their mind if they think that's actually a relevant concern.
> 3. A malicious piece of firmware uses the lack of Secure Boot to modify the boot partition to ensure the malware loads before the OS, thereby permanently disabling all ability for the system to repair itself from within itself
Oh no so now the malware can only permanently encrypt all the users files and permanently leak their secrets. But hey at least the user can repair the operating system instead of having to reinstall it. And in practice they can't even be sure about that because computers are simply too complex.
Yes. They're making the point that your flashing yellow warning is a good thing, and that it's helpful to the customer that a mechanism is in place to prevent it from being disabled by an attacker.
What happens when there are no more devices that allow for that use case? This is already pretty much the case for phones, it's only a matter of time until Microsoft catches up.
Waydroid allows to run Android apps that don't require SafetyNet. If your bank forces you into the duopoly with no workaround, it's a good reason to switch.
I don't know about executable signing, but in the embedded world SecureBoot is also used to serve the PRODUCER; id est provide guarantees to the PRODUCER that the firmware of the device they SELL has not been tampered with at some point in the PROFIT chain.
In my case a firmware provider went out of business, and in one particular device the firmware gets stuck in an endless boot loop. It tries to calibrate some led's, but forgets to round some differences, so it can never converge to a proper calibration.
Device is bricked, firmware is secured with a signing key, refactoring a new device is pretty hard. The current one needed 10 years of development.
I'm on the wait to either patch the firmware by finding the problematic byte (if it's patchable, round() needs much more), or to wait for the original dev willing to release an update on his own. BTW Claude opus got much better than ghidra lately. It's perfect.
I see the value of protected firmware updates, but business has to survive also.
Frankly: that's stupid. In case you didn't figure it out, I work in the field and I can tell you that this is was not the mindset at the places where I worked.
You can set up custom SecureBoot keys on your firmware and configure Linux to boot using it.
There's also plenty of folks combining this with TPM and boot measurements.
The ugly part of SecureBoot is that all hardware comes with MS's keys, and lots of software assume that you'll want MS in charge of your hardware security, but SecureBoot _can_ be used to serve the user.
Obviously there's hardware that's the exception to this, and I totally share your dislike of it.
> You can set up custom SecureBoot keys on your firmware and configure Linux to boot using it.
Right, but as engineers, we should resist the temptation to equate _possible_ with _practical_.
The mere fact that even the most business oriented Linux distributions have issues playing along SecureBoot is worrying. Essentially, SB has become a Windows only technology.
The promise of what SB could be useful for is even muddier. I would argue that the chances of being victim of firmware tampering are pretty thin compared to other attack vectors, yet somehow we end up all having SB and its most significant achievement is training people that disabling it is totally fine.
An unsigned hash is plenty guard to against tampering. The supply chain and any secret sauce that went into that firmware is just trust. Trust that the blob is well intentioned, trust that you downloaded from the right URL, checked the right SHA, trust that the organization running the URL is sanctioned to do so by Microsoft...
Once all of that trust for every piece of software is concentrated in one organization, Microsoft, Apple or Google, is has become totally meaningless.
I happen to like knowing that my mobile device did not have a ring 0 backdoor installed before it left the factory in Asia. SecureBoot gives me that confidence.
The public keys are provided by the developer. Google, or Apple, for example. It's how they know that nothing was tampered with before it left the factory.
Apple or Google know what the cryptographic signature of the boot should be. They provide the keys. It's how they know that "factory reset" does not include covert code installed by the factory. That's what we're talking about.
One thing that confused me in TFA is that it says that "[neanderthals were] maybe a couple of thousand breeding individuals", yet they were enough to inter-breed with sapiens at some point(s) [1]. In my mind, tribes of "far-flung populations of just a few dozen individuals" would be shy and difficult to find.
Ambiguë (ambiguous) and aiguë (acute) [1], but these are "old" spellings.
For instance, this word "ambiguë" was changed in the 1990 spelling reform to "ambigüe" [2] probably to emphasis the fact that the U is not mute (because for most -gue words it is, like for "fatigue" in french and english).
Like with ï and ü, the tréma mark is precisely the mark of an exception.
> It only really makes sense for extremely memory-constrained embedded systems
Even "mildly" memory constrained embedded systems don't use swap because their resources are tailored for their function. And they are typically not fans [1] of compression either because the compression rate is often unpredictable.
[1] Yes, they typically don't need fans because overheating and using a motor for cooling is a double waste of energy.
So "better" means "more specialized" more often that it means "more optimized". I don't say it is a bad thing per se, but it is best to keep in mind that they are two types of improvement, fixes and specializations, because the latter is a commitment.
reply