5 ms·
The only other thing I’d do here as Fortnite’s Chief is to broadly make secure install infrastructure available to other indie developers. This would gain some
by Dwolb 8y ago
The only other thing I’d do here as Fortnite’s Chief is to broadly make secure install infrastructure available to other indie developers. This would gain some goodwill and could turn into another revenue stream.
+1 points for turning this issue into more publicity.
- Someone1234 8y ago> make secure install infrastructure available to other indie developers Epic doesn't have "secure" install infrastructure, that's the whole crux of this issue.
- jessaustin 8y agoSure but they are a capable well-capitalized development organization. Such infrastructure is not an impossible technology; numerous open source implementations exist. Therefore they will have such infrastructure sometime in the next 6 months. When they have it, they can offer it as a service to other organizations whose interests are similarly opposed to Google's.
- Kalium 8y agoYou're absolutely, completely right! Secure infrastructure is possible and numerous implementations exist. Given how right you are, it's exceptionally odd that a capable well-capitalized development organization would not use such systems and manage such a basic mistake.
- jessaustin 8y ago"Poor decision by management hoping to save some money" is not a rare event.
- Kalium 8y agoFor that matter, neither is a poor decision made by engineers who think it's fun to reinvent wheels. Both have happened plenty in history.
- lozenge 8y agoAs of 7 days ago they do.
- Someone1234 8y agoAccording to who or what? That's definitely not what the bug report and Epic themselves say, they never fixed the execution of unverified code issue, they just moved where the unverified code was stored so that other apps couldn't replace it easily. They still need to actually verify that what they're executing is what they verified.
- Dylan16807 8y ago> They still need to actually verify that what they're executing is what they verified. They did. Why would you say otherwise? If they can't trust the private storage to be private, then you're looking at a compromised phone where they can't trust any mechanism.
- Someone1234 8y ago> They did. Why would you say otherwise? Because I read the bug report? Where Epic specifically say they didn't fix the execution, instead they changed the storage context from External to Internal. The main issue is that they verify after download instead of before execution. You put an exclusive write lock on the file, verify the file, and then execute the file without releasing the lock. It is what every other major installer or updater does. Epic's version instead downloaded the file, verified it, then [Sleep], and installed whatever was at that location. It is insecure.
- Dylan16807 8y agoInternal app-specific storage is private. That's all it needs to do. I'm not sure holding a lock even works to prevent file renaming on most OSes...
- 8y ago