6 ms·

IMO Yes. iOS doesn't have this problem. I believe Android finally doesn't have this problem. Windows, Linux, and MacOS all have this problem because they don't

IMO Yes. iOS doesn't have this problem. I believe Android finally doesn't have this problem. Windows, Linux, and MacOS all have this problem because they don't run sandboxes by default. OSes should be redesigned to make it nearly impossible to install a rootkit. Sure there will be bugs in the OS but those bugs will be fixed but the goal should be that apps can't own your entire computer anytime you install one and asking for admin should have big giant warnings and be shunned and shamed from any software that asks for it.

isostatic 8y ago
I want a computer, not a walled garden.
- freehunter 8y ago
  It's not an either/or situation.
  - vetinari 8y ago
    It is. It is being called 'dancing pig problem'.
    - freehunter 8y ago
      That's not exactly what I meant. I work in information security and I can't name a single colleague who would argue that a normal user should have full admin access to any machine right out of the box, but people like you and me who are responsible and educated enough not to make uninformed decisions should be able to have admin access. There are tons of ways that both can be accomplished at the same time. Linux, for example, does it out of the box. Most Linux systems don't give you root access, and some even disable logins to the root account altogether. You have to specifically escalate your privileges. If the user account isn't in the sudoers group, tough luck. Windows has UAC for this, too. I find it very lacking, but it's better than nothing. macOS has a similar permissions system. Application whitelisting is another great option. Let users install trusted and signed programs, while admins have the ability to install anything they want. And also look for iOS versus Android. Almost no one using iOS is able to install random applications from the Internet, and it still has huge marketshare because most people don't care. Android is an option for those who do care. It's not either/or. Options exist for both use cases. What responsible tech people need to do is use the option they're most comfortable with, while steering normal end users towards the safest option possible. It's even as simple as installing Windows, giving the user a normal (unprivileged) account, and just not giving them the admin password. The dancing pig problem has been solved.
      - vetinari 8y ago
        Sure, but most people who shouldn't have admin access do not have them already, (if the machine they use is managed). Even with Windows, if you are not in Administrators group, and your try something that requires UAC, tough luck, just like with sudo. That leaves us with private machines: should the user have the admin access, if it is his private machine? He is the owner after all. If "not yet", who and when will grant it, when the need arises/the user educates himself/etc? Also, how will the user, who is willing to educate himself able to do, when he is not allowed to try and fail? iOS turned this into a big brother scenario: there is someone else, who has to approve any program that you can run on the device. However, Apple might have objectives and responsibilities that may be different than yours, and they may deny you running an app, that is otherwise perfectly fine (and not just for technical reasons: imagine living in Crimea today, for example). Even on Android, there are things that you may legitimately want to do, but out of the box the system won't let you - you may either need the same signing key that the platform is signed with, or full blown root (backing up the device, for example). Both of these platforms take away possibilities in the name of what the mainstream user supposedly wants, and nobody is going to ask you, whether you are competent to use these features or not. Once you lose these possibilities, they are not going back.
- kroltan 8y ago
  You don't necessarily need a walled garden. A walled garden is the centralized "store" where you _have_ to download apps from. But you can still have proper security features without centralization. Android's permission system, or even some form of isolated per-process virtualization/sandboxing can go a long way. If properly architectured, it can be possible to prevent a good bunch of malware.
- ufmace 8y ago
  You and I may want that, but I'm thinking lately that like 98% of computer users don't want it and shouldn't have it. Even for myself, I may want that for some of my actual computers. For phones and TVs and such, I'd rather it be 100% reliable and idiot proof than be able to install custom OSes or whatever.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    Sure, but that's why my mother-in-law and grandmother have chromebooks, which from a cursory glance looked enough to do everything they need and keep them safe. Certainly better than the "this free fart sound app requires access to your camera, microphone, gps location, background running, contact list, ability to send sms, etc" popups that people like my mother-in-law will just press "Yes" on.
- shittyadmin 8y ago
  I agree deeply, but I honestly think that approach of Android is the best here. Sandboxed to an app store by default, possible to enable 3rd party installations by jumping through a few hoops and big warning boxes, much more difficult to gain real root access, but still possible on many devices via manufacturer-approved methods. Prevents malicious apps like this from really mining their way into your devices but allows power users to have real control still.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    And how does running apps in a container differ to this?
    - shittyadmin 8y ago
      The whole model for modern mobile OSes is based on running apps in containers, so they're one in the same essentially. Windows lacks such containerization for most desktop apps, they're trying to improve that model now with UWP but with limited success I'd say, the Windows world is largely stuck on desktop apps that have general access to everything just due to the history of it.
      - isostatic 8y ago
        If desiring containers are what the OP's assertion is about "Windows, Linux, and MacOS all have this problem because they don't run sandboxes by default. OSes should be redesigned to make it nearly impossible to install a rootkit" Isn't an OS problem, and requires no redesign (well no idea about Windows), it's just a choice of how to run their machine. Perhaps if OP believes that all apps should be containerised, but this doesn't need an OS to be redesigned, it just means a new skin. I could easily see a "Dockbuntu" which, instead of distributing programs like Firefox and spotify, distribute links to docker containers running those programs, where the user can choose which directories to mount into the application's container (and whether they should be readonly, readwrite, etc)
Maarten88 8y ago
There is Windows 10 in "S-mode" for this. A user can't screw up this type of Windows installation, just like iOS/Android. The problem is that most people seem to not like the limitations. Although you can now install iTunes from the Windows store, there is still no Chrome which most users really want.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rocqua 8y ago
> asking for admin should have big giant warnings and be shunned and shamed from any software that asks for it. This is the solution, but it has a rather important second part. It requires granular privileges, and must make it easy for developers to not need the more severe privileges. Without this, developers will continue to request full admin privileges, and users will be trained to accept giving them.

isostatic 8y ago

I want a computer, not a walled garden.

freehunter 8y ago
It's not an either/or situation.
- vetinari 8y ago
  It is. It is being called 'dancing pig problem'.
  - freehunter 8y ago
    That's not exactly what I meant. I work in information security and I can't name a single colleague who would argue that a normal user should have full admin access to any machine right out of the box, but people like you and me who are responsible and educated enough not to make uninformed decisions should be able to have admin access. There are tons of ways that both can be accomplished at the same time. Linux, for example, does it out of the box. Most Linux systems don't give you root access, and some even disable logins to the root account altogether. You have to specifically escalate your privileges. If the user account isn't in the sudoers group, tough luck. Windows has UAC for this, too. I find it very lacking, but it's better than nothing. macOS has a similar permissions system. Application whitelisting is another great option. Let users install trusted and signed programs, while admins have the ability to install anything they want. And also look for iOS versus Android. Almost no one using iOS is able to install random applications from the Internet, and it still has huge marketshare because most people don't care. Android is an option for those who do care. It's not either/or. Options exist for both use cases. What responsible tech people need to do is use the option they're most comfortable with, while steering normal end users towards the safest option possible. It's even as simple as installing Windows, giving the user a normal (unprivileged) account, and just not giving them the admin password. The dancing pig problem has been solved.
    - vetinari 8y ago
      Sure, but most people who shouldn't have admin access do not have them already, (if the machine they use is managed). Even with Windows, if you are not in Administrators group, and your try something that requires UAC, tough luck, just like with sudo. That leaves us with private machines: should the user have the admin access, if it is his private machine? He is the owner after all. If "not yet", who and when will grant it, when the need arises/the user educates himself/etc? Also, how will the user, who is willing to educate himself able to do, when he is not allowed to try and fail? iOS turned this into a big brother scenario: there is someone else, who has to approve any program that you can run on the device. However, Apple might have objectives and responsibilities that may be different than yours, and they may deny you running an app, that is otherwise perfectly fine (and not just for technical reasons: imagine living in Crimea today, for example). Even on Android, there are things that you may legitimately want to do, but out of the box the system won't let you - you may either need the same signing key that the platform is signed with, or full blown root (backing up the device, for example). Both of these platforms take away possibilities in the name of what the mainstream user supposedly wants, and nobody is going to ask you, whether you are competent to use these features or not. Once you lose these possibilities, they are not going back.
kroltan 8y ago
You don't necessarily need a walled garden. A walled garden is the centralized "store" where you _have_ to download apps from. But you can still have proper security features without centralization. Android's permission system, or even some form of isolated per-process virtualization/sandboxing can go a long way. If properly architectured, it can be possible to prevent a good bunch of malware.
ufmace 8y ago
You and I may want that, but I'm thinking lately that like 98% of computer users don't want it and shouldn't have it. Even for myself, I may want that for some of my actual computers. For phones and TVs and such, I'd rather it be 100% reliable and idiot proof than be able to install custom OSes or whatever.
- isostatic 8y ago
  Sure, but that's why my mother-in-law and grandmother have chromebooks, which from a cursory glance looked enough to do everything they need and keep them safe. Certainly better than the "this free fart sound app requires access to your camera, microphone, gps location, background running, contact list, ability to send sms, etc" popups that people like my mother-in-law will just press "Yes" on.
shittyadmin 8y ago
I agree deeply, but I honestly think that approach of Android is the best here. Sandboxed to an app store by default, possible to enable 3rd party installations by jumping through a few hoops and big warning boxes, much more difficult to gain real root access, but still possible on many devices via manufacturer-approved methods. Prevents malicious apps like this from really mining their way into your devices but allows power users to have real control still.
- isostatic 8y ago
  And how does running apps in a container differ to this?
  - shittyadmin 8y ago
    The whole model for modern mobile OSes is based on running apps in containers, so they're one in the same essentially. Windows lacks such containerization for most desktop apps, they're trying to improve that model now with UWP but with limited success I'd say, the Windows world is largely stuck on desktop apps that have general access to everything just due to the history of it.
    - isostatic 8y ago
      If desiring containers are what the OP's assertion is about "Windows, Linux, and MacOS all have this problem because they don't run sandboxes by default. OSes should be redesigned to make it nearly impossible to install a rootkit" Isn't an OS problem, and requires no redesign (well no idea about Windows), it's just a choice of how to run their machine. Perhaps if OP believes that all apps should be containerised, but this doesn't need an OS to be redesigned, it just means a new skin. I could easily see a "Dockbuntu" which, instead of distributing programs like Firefox and spotify, distribute links to docker containers running those programs, where the user can choose which directories to mount into the application's container (and whether they should be readonly, readwrite, etc)

Maarten88 8y ago

There is Windows 10 in "S-mode" for this. A user can't screw up this type of Windows installation, just like iOS/Android. The problem is that most people seem to not like the limitations. Although you can now install iTunes from the Windows store, there is still no Chrome which most users really want.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

rocqua 8y ago

> asking for admin should have big giant warnings and be shunned and shamed from any software that asks for it. This is the solution, but it has a rather important second part. It requires granular privileges, and must make it easy for developers to not need the more severe privileges. Without this, developers will continue to request full admin privileges, and users will be trained to accept giving them.