4 ms·

Yeah, and if MS tries and change this and make the kernel more secure I would expect huge outrage on HN from people complaining about MS restricting their freed

• mindslight 6y ago
  Having the police put a lock on your front door that you don't have the key to will technically make your home "more secure", but not in any way that's useful. Locking down devices is actually just giving up on security. Trusted code and centralized review don't scale. Real security implies effectively mediating between many different interacting parties, not simply reducing the number of them.
• gnramires 6y ago
  UAC (User Account Control) is some of the best thing Microsoft ever did for their security (and it might have inspired android permission system), probably following the Unix. I feel my naivete of complaining at the time I had to click a security prompt. It's still sorely missing fine-grained control like network access (perhaps even fine-grained network access control), and access to various devices and folder locations; within reason, the more controlled and restricted the better. Linux ought to make a move in this front and gain ground on security advantage: shouldn't we be able to give access to specific processes (say an installed game or text application) to specific folders and devices? Why should a game be able to read all my files (and not just its own folder), and why should any of those be able to use the network?