3 ms·
Can you elaborate how this feels anti-user?
by dagmx 4y ago
Can you elaborate how this feels anti-user?
- matheusmoreira 4y agoAs the owner of the machine, I should have total access to everything. There should be no protected memory I can't read, no execution I can't trace. The number one user of such security features are "rights holders" that consider me hostile and want to protect their software from me, the owner of the machine it is running on. The result is a computer that is factory pwned. It's not really my computer, they're just "generously" allowing me to run software on it as long as it doesn't harm their bottom line. Virtualization based security, the technology enabling this, also enables DRM. It is currently required by Netflix for 4k resolution streaming.
- threeseed 4y ago> I should have total access to everything You do have total access. You chose to install an OS that wants to limit it.
- dagmx 4y agoHow do you propose having security in that world? Should any process be able to access the memory of any other process? Should you opening a web page allow you a security issue there to be able to access your running applications? I guess my question is, you seem to have a very hardline “everything” take that I don’t think extends to the real world
- mckeed 4y agoStill build the security protections but allow the administrator to selectively disable/override them.
- josephcsible 4y agoYou're confusing "I" should have access to all the data on my machine, with "anything running on my machine" should have access to all the data on my machine.
- ikiris 4y agoAhh right, I forgot about the "user requested" security flag. Makes sense.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago> Should any process be able to access the memory of any other process? Any process? No. My processes? Yes. That includes "sensitive" memory like cryptographic keys.
- saagarjha 4y agoWhat distinguishes your processes?
- staticassertion 4y agoIf you're the admin of the system you can just load up your own kernel, or kernel modules, etc.