3 ms·
Yeah but no one's found any evidence that any code calls it. (At least not that I've seen.)
by mlindner 5y ago
Yeah but no one's found any evidence that any code calls it. (At least not that I've seen.)
- arminiusreturns 5y agoBlack box closed source systems sorta make verification of what the device is doing rather difficult.
- djrogers 5y agoNot really - there are a ton of ways to profile and monitor a Mac to determine what processes are calling into what, and spotting something activating this code oth would be trivial if it were happening.
- arminiusreturns 5y agoYou say that, but there are also tons of ways to hide such things (there is an entire field dedicated to side-channel leakage). The point is you don't know unless you have the source code (and can compile it yourself, I'm ignoring the trust of compilers at the moment). You can try to reverse engineer and analyse all you want, but it doesn't mean you know what the system is really doing...
- cwkoss 5y agoIt may be trivial to look under a given rock, but when there are hundreds of thousands of rocks, the likelihood of someone noticing something left under a rock is low.
- Piskvorrr 5y ago"Yeah, we have this really suspicious code here, sure, but we have not started calling it. Pinky swear." The issue here is not the trustworthiness of the pinky swear...
- mlindner 5y agoI'm not saying it's a good situation, but it's not terrible yet.
- Piskvorrr 5y agoI am reminded of the joke "an optimist falls from a skyscraper. At second floor, he thinks: 'so far, so good.'" In other words, a situation that seems to be a feature toggle away from becoming terrible is terrible in itself.