3 ms·

I'm hugely optimistic about CHERI, or similar approaches if this fails to get traction. We get the biggest security benefits when we rule out entire classes of

I'm hugely optimistic about CHERI, or similar approaches if this fails to get traction. We get the biggest security benefits when we rule out entire classes of vulnerability and take them away from developers needing to care about them, e.g. memory safe languages. It's particularly good that CHERI works with C and C++ code at the source level. No offense to software developers, but the incentives to push code out as quickly as possible simply doesn't align with the need for security, even if the developer understands all the potential issues.

azalemeth 5y ago
This might be hyperbolic, but I worry that this will further cement the stranglehold that Big Tech has on us, broadly speaking, as hackers. Remote attestation, hardware-backed DRM, TPMs and other Microsoft-favoured technologies exist to wrest control of a computer from a user with physical access to "the rights holder" or "the IT department". Say what you want about memory vulnerabilities (they're a bad thing!), I secretly like the fact that everything has an implementation bug for a determined enough attacker. It means that if you own a device and have unrestricted physical access to it -- something that only really happens if you own a device -- then you're likely able to bend its software to your will. That's what hacking is about, after all! I worry that this architecture will end up in HDCPv3 chips, or as an embedded SOC (or chiplet) in the next x86 processors, constantly checking that everything is okay. People say that this idea leading to hating behind trusted computing is paranoid, but as every rooted Android user knows, it's not.
- MattPalmer1086 5y ago
  You are obviously correct that taking away the ability to exploit code will impact "good" hacks as well as "bad" ones. However, I'd rather be able to install an OS I want without needing to hack the software in the first place. We need a "right to modify" alongside other issues like "right to repair".

azalemeth 5y ago

This might be hyperbolic, but I worry that this will further cement the stranglehold that Big Tech has on us, broadly speaking, as hackers. Remote attestation, hardware-backed DRM, TPMs and other Microsoft-favoured technologies exist to wrest control of a computer from a user with physical access to "the rights holder" or "the IT department". Say what you want about memory vulnerabilities (they're a bad thing!), I secretly like the fact that everything has an implementation bug for a determined enough attacker. It means that if you own a device and have unrestricted physical access to it -- something that only really happens if you own a device -- then you're likely able to bend its software to your will. That's what hacking is about, after all! I worry that this architecture will end up in HDCPv3 chips, or as an embedded SOC (or chiplet) in the next x86 processors, constantly checking that everything is okay. People say that this idea leading to hating behind trusted computing is paranoid, but as every rooted Android user knows, it's not.

MattPalmer1086 5y ago
You are obviously correct that taking away the ability to exploit code will impact "good" hacks as well as "bad" ones. However, I'd rather be able to install an OS I want without needing to hack the software in the first place. We need a "right to modify" alongside other issues like "right to repair".