4 ms·

That's a key part of the security landscape that many techie users just don't seem to get. Maybe you'd like to be able to run your own code natively without jum

by ufmace 6y ago

That's a key part of the security landscape that many techie users just don't seem to get. Maybe you'd like to be able to run your own code natively without jumping through a bunch of hoops, and distribute code you wrote without it having to be blessed by some megacorp that might not care too much about you. And maybe you're doing nothing but good and useful things when you use those abilities. But there are a ton of bad actors out there who will also use those abilities to scam and steal. You can stereotype it as only clueless users falling for that, and there's even a little truth to it, but 1. Some are quite good and nobody is perfect, you can still get scammed yourself, and 2. It seems not cool to just write off everybody who isn't a tech expert, throw them to the wolves, blame them for falling for any scams.

orangecat 6y ago
That's a key part of the security landscape that many techie users just don't seem to get. I get it. And I don't think the threat justifies handing complete control of our computing environments to a single corporation. But there are a ton of bad actors out there who will also use those abilities to scam and steal. Bad actors often set up fake websites. Should computers and phones have mandatory browser filters so you can only go to approved sites?
- ufmace 6y ago
  Bad actors often set up fake websites. Should computers and phones have mandatory browser filters so you can only go to approved sites? Well they don't, but browsers do spend an inordinate amount of effort trying to make sure that bad websites can't do anything other than show you things. I'm pretty sure that all of the browser vendors will pay 5-6 figure sums for any exploit chains that would allow a website to do things like read files without permission or execute code on the OS. And people regularly complain about the ever-tightening restrictions on what websites are allowed to do.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
    That's also the case for apps though, at least on iOS apps are sandboxed almost as well as web sites to my knowledge.
Miraste 6y ago
What a false dichotomy. I don't see a problem with the way Microsoft handles it, allowing you to run unsigned apps but only after clear warnings about the consequences and a moderately obscured install button. People ignoring these warnings without understanding them are not being thrown to the wolves, they're consciously deciding to do something they know to be dangerous. Apple's upcoming blocking of anything they don't approve of on macs is not an okay solution to this.

by ufmace 6y ago

orangecat 6y ago

That's a key part of the security landscape that many techie users just don't seem to get. I get it. And I don't think the threat justifies handing complete control of our computing environments to a single corporation. But there are a ton of bad actors out there who will also use those abilities to scam and steal. Bad actors often set up fake websites. Should computers and phones have mandatory browser filters so you can only go to approved sites?

ufmace 6y ago
Bad actors often set up fake websites. Should computers and phones have mandatory browser filters so you can only go to approved sites? Well they don't, but browsers do spend an inordinate amount of effort trying to make sure that bad websites can't do anything other than show you things. I'm pretty sure that all of the browser vendors will pay 5-6 figure sums for any exploit chains that would allow a website to do things like read files without permission or execute code on the OS. And people regularly complain about the ever-tightening restrictions on what websites are allowed to do.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
  That's also the case for apps though, at least on iOS apps are sandboxed almost as well as web sites to my knowledge.

Miraste 6y ago

What a false dichotomy. I don't see a problem with the way Microsoft handles it, allowing you to run unsigned apps but only after clear warnings about the consequences and a moderately obscured install button. People ignoring these warnings without understanding them are not being thrown to the wolves, they're consciously deciding to do something they know to be dangerous. Apple's upcoming blocking of anything they don't approve of on macs is not an okay solution to this.