3 ms·
This is classic victim rationalization in the face of an abusers whims. Maybe if I talk softly when he comes home or make just the right meal I won't get a bla
by rsync 5y ago
This is classic victim rationalization in the face of an abusers whims.
Maybe if I talk softly when he comes home or make just the right meal I won't get a black eye.
Maybe if I do the correct little rain dance, Windows won't open up gaping security holes whose descriptions could have been written twenty years ago.
It's not going to work.
Windows is going to keep abusing you.
You're going to keep getting black eyes.
It is simultaneously fascinating and depressing to know that more than twenty years later we're still reading about autorun.inf and LANMAN.
- fnord77 5y agokinda agree. I can't see why anyone in their right mind would use windows for security critical infra
- derefr 5y agoWindows IoT Core is a pretty good RTOS, competitive with VxWorks. The NT kernel is good engineering. It’s the Win32 userland baggage that causes all the problems.
- dylan604 5y agoCan you have one without the other?
- EvanAnderson 5y agoThe native NT kernel APIs are "undocumented" and meant for private use inside Microsoft only.
- derefr 5y agoThat's why I mentioned IoT Core: it is, in fact, Windows without the Win32 userland. As such, it has no shell other than a web interface, and only runs UWP executables. If you've ever interacted with an Xbox One in dev-kit mode, that's basically the experience of using Windows IoT Core.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- EvanAnderson 5y agoWhile I would agree that Windows has had a less-than-stellar security record (as has Unix, for that matter), I don't think an operating system-specific mechanism is at play for enabling ransomware. The paradigm that all programs run with a set of permissions defined by the identity of executing user is the main fault (i.e. I ran the ransomware and, therefore, the ransomware has access to all files I have access to). That's not unique to Windows. A capabilities-based permission system would help. I'm not convinced that capabilities will limit the damage to file servers, however. I don't see users or IT admins having the capacity to map out access to shared filesystems on a two dimensional matrix of security principals and applications. Most companies can barely pull it off for just security principals. If we move away from file servers the new ransomware will move to attacking whatever the next platform is, co-opting whatever "tokens" define the users' and devices' access to applications. Rate limiting and behavior monitoring are probably our best bets on long-term eradication of ransomware. (That and CoW filesystems becoming the rule, rather than the exception.)
- OminousWeapons 5y agoI agree that moving off of Windows would be helpful, but I'm not sure that abandoning Windows is a realistic proposition for many companies given how much legacy tech exists.