5 ms·

My pet theory of breakdown causality goes like this We have operating systems that trust everything by default. This means that going tot he wrong web site ca

My pet theory of breakdown causality goes like this We have operating systems that trust everything by default. This means that going tot he wrong web site can bork your machine. This means you don't stray from familiar sites, leading to walled gardens Which is why we have FAANG

tenebrisalietum 4y ago
Capability-based instead of user-account-based operating systems and interfaces would go a long way of breaking this pattern.
- oblak 4y ago
  General purpose hardware that's been artificially castrated by software? Is that really a good way to fight walled gardens?
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    Depends on who controls the capability granting. Which at the end of the day feels a lot like ACL just with functionality based controls instead of file based (with some functional bits bolted on the side).
    - mikewarot 4y ago
      It's not just like ACLs, though. An ACL is like permissions into a vault. Capabilities are like taking a $10 bill out of your wallet to pay for a coffee, the most you can lose is the capability ($10 bill) you deployed in the transaction, you can't somehow lose your entire bank balance. Another analogy is that of a circuit breaker. No matter what, it protects the wires in your house from overcurrent. You never have to worry about accidentally taking down the power grid when you plug in a toaster.
- whartung 4y ago
  I disagree. We already have this to some extent. Do you enjoy going through all of the dialogs and what not to run an application today? Consider all of the switches and opt-outs going on on a smart phone today. "X wants to do X, Y, Z, Q, E, D, A, B, C on your device. Is that ok?" Do you think users are going to say no? They want to run the software. The software is an all or nothing affair. "Use our software, we only ask for 'X, Y, Z, Q, E, D, A, B', unlike those other guys". Think that happens much? I don't think the companies are competing at that level, because the more they DON'T do, the less services they can provide. The litany of dialogs and options and managing all that sends the cognitive load of using the device on an exponential spiral. Most folks habitually click through those alerts. "Yes, I agree to the 1000 word, 4pt font, unread license. Yes, you can track my location, YES! You can have my contacts, Gee wilickers I just want to PRINT A PHOTO!!11!". It is exhausting! It's a false sense of control. "Well, sure you can turn all of that off...but then what? Guess you didn't want those tickets to that concert then, did you?" The action, unfortunately, has to be regulatory, and I don't see how that can be practical either without vast loophole as we've seen with the cookie banner hell we live with today.
  - mikewarot 4y ago
    >"X wants to do X, Y, Z, Q, E, D, A, B, C on your device. Is that ok?" That's NOT capability based security. (Like Java/Javascript, there's confusion) In a capability based system you use a power box (a system supplied dialog box) to select files for a program to operate on, just like users do already with file select dialog boxes. It's just that the program ONLY gets capability to operate those files and nothing else. There's no complicated flags or anything like that to mess with. You pick the photo to print and the printer to send it to and you're done.
upbeat_general 4y ago
I really don't think people use google/facebook/etc. because they're concerned about web security.
- always2slow 4y ago
  Maybe you should survey more regular people? So many people say "I just use X because I don't want Y" where X is apple/google/facebook/etc and Y is something bad they're heard about or experienced from going to random webpages or something their kids did.
  - oblak 4y ago
    I am not disputing your claims, however I do wonder about the source of the surveys you talk about
rektide 4y ago
Web specs go through Technical Architecture Group (tag) and Web Application Security Group. Operating systems are free to contribute & do help keep things in check, but this regulation/securing of the web has nothing to do with what operating systems are doing. > This means that going to the wrong web site can bork your machine Examples wanted. What are you talking about? This disinformation FUD is something web browsers & web security work absurdly hard to prevent. You're right that many native applications have no such guards, but you switch from talking about OSes to making fantastic claims against websites. Please provide some evidence of these extrodinary Fears Uncertainys and Doubts (FUDs) that you are spreading.
- mikewarot 4y ago
  It doesn't matter what the web SERVER is doing, it's the client on the PC that can get confused, and end up compromising the machine. The web client is a weak link, it always will be, because there are no limits (by default) on what it can do, by default, in most consumer operating systems.
  - rektide 4y ago
    I don't think what you are talking about has happened in the last 10 years. And it was only bugs/deficiencies back before. Browsers are incredibly careful, better designed than OSes. For example, browsers all shipped protection against spectre/meltdown within weeks of the vulnerabilities being revealed. Browsers are extremely conservative & some of the best engineered sandboxes on the planet. If you could link to something, anything describing what specifically you think the threat is, what problems there are, I'd be most appreciative. This fear-centric conjecture you are spreading does not match what the intent of the browser is, which is to provide a tight secure sandbox such that a user can navigate anywhere at all and have a safe comfortable predictable time.
    - mikewarot 4y ago
      Here's an example from [1] "The current Chrome update addresses the fifth zero-day vulnerability in Google Chrome this year that is actively exploited by threat actors" The thing is, web browsers are just one "app" running on a PC, and there are many classes of programs. The blind trust the user's operating system puts into ANY program is a problem. [1] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/google-fixes-fifth-chrome-zero-day-bug-exploited-this-year/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/google-fixes-...

tenebrisalietum 4y ago

Capability-based instead of user-account-based operating systems and interfaces would go a long way of breaking this pattern.

oblak 4y ago
General purpose hardware that's been artificially castrated by software? Is that really a good way to fight walled gardens?
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Depends on who controls the capability granting. Which at the end of the day feels a lot like ACL just with functionality based controls instead of file based (with some functional bits bolted on the side).
  - mikewarot 4y ago
    It's not just like ACLs, though. An ACL is like permissions into a vault. Capabilities are like taking a $10 bill out of your wallet to pay for a coffee, the most you can lose is the capability ($10 bill) you deployed in the transaction, you can't somehow lose your entire bank balance. Another analogy is that of a circuit breaker. No matter what, it protects the wires in your house from overcurrent. You never have to worry about accidentally taking down the power grid when you plug in a toaster.
whartung 4y ago
I disagree. We already have this to some extent. Do you enjoy going through all of the dialogs and what not to run an application today? Consider all of the switches and opt-outs going on on a smart phone today. "X wants to do X, Y, Z, Q, E, D, A, B, C on your device. Is that ok?" Do you think users are going to say no? They want to run the software. The software is an all or nothing affair. "Use our software, we only ask for 'X, Y, Z, Q, E, D, A, B', unlike those other guys". Think that happens much? I don't think the companies are competing at that level, because the more they DON'T do, the less services they can provide. The litany of dialogs and options and managing all that sends the cognitive load of using the device on an exponential spiral. Most folks habitually click through those alerts. "Yes, I agree to the 1000 word, 4pt font, unread license. Yes, you can track my location, YES! You can have my contacts, Gee wilickers I just want to PRINT A PHOTO!!11!". It is exhausting! It's a false sense of control. "Well, sure you can turn all of that off...but then what? Guess you didn't want those tickets to that concert then, did you?" The action, unfortunately, has to be regulatory, and I don't see how that can be practical either without vast loophole as we've seen with the cookie banner hell we live with today.
- mikewarot 4y ago
  >"X wants to do X, Y, Z, Q, E, D, A, B, C on your device. Is that ok?" That's NOT capability based security. (Like Java/Javascript, there's confusion) In a capability based system you use a power box (a system supplied dialog box) to select files for a program to operate on, just like users do already with file select dialog boxes. It's just that the program ONLY gets capability to operate those files and nothing else. There's no complicated flags or anything like that to mess with. You pick the photo to print and the printer to send it to and you're done.

upbeat_general 4y ago

I really don't think people use google/facebook/etc. because they're concerned about web security.

always2slow 4y ago
Maybe you should survey more regular people? So many people say "I just use X because I don't want Y" where X is apple/google/facebook/etc and Y is something bad they're heard about or experienced from going to random webpages or something their kids did.
- oblak 4y ago
  I am not disputing your claims, however I do wonder about the source of the surveys you talk about

rektide 4y ago

Web specs go through Technical Architecture Group (tag) and Web Application Security Group. Operating systems are free to contribute & do help keep things in check, but this regulation/securing of the web has nothing to do with what operating systems are doing. > This means that going to the wrong web site can bork your machine Examples wanted. What are you talking about? This disinformation FUD is something web browsers & web security work absurdly hard to prevent. You're right that many native applications have no such guards, but you switch from talking about OSes to making fantastic claims against websites. Please provide some evidence of these extrodinary Fears Uncertainys and Doubts (FUDs) that you are spreading.

mikewarot 4y ago
It doesn't matter what the web SERVER is doing, it's the client on the PC that can get confused, and end up compromising the machine. The web client is a weak link, it always will be, because there are no limits (by default) on what it can do, by default, in most consumer operating systems.
- rektide 4y ago
  I don't think what you are talking about has happened in the last 10 years. And it was only bugs/deficiencies back before. Browsers are incredibly careful, better designed than OSes. For example, browsers all shipped protection against spectre/meltdown within weeks of the vulnerabilities being revealed. Browsers are extremely conservative & some of the best engineered sandboxes on the planet. If you could link to something, anything describing what specifically you think the threat is, what problems there are, I'd be most appreciative. This fear-centric conjecture you are spreading does not match what the intent of the browser is, which is to provide a tight secure sandbox such that a user can navigate anywhere at all and have a safe comfortable predictable time.
  - mikewarot 4y ago
    Here's an example from [1] "The current Chrome update addresses the fifth zero-day vulnerability in Google Chrome this year that is actively exploited by threat actors" The thing is, web browsers are just one "app" running on a PC, and there are many classes of programs. The blind trust the user's operating system puts into ANY program is a problem. [1] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/google-fixes-fifth-chrome-zero-day-bug-exploited-this-year/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/google-fixes-...