2 ms·

Do I like your idea for that? Yes, absolutely. It's a clever idea. But do I think Microsoft was negligent in not building that? No, I think that's going too

Do I like your idea for that? Yes, absolutely. It's a clever idea. But do I think Microsoft was negligent in not building that? No, I think that's going too far. Windows already has Safe Mode -- as you note -- to allow for manual recovery, which is what people are using. I don't think it makes sense for it to be Microsoft's legal responsibility to protect its users from software with a critical bug that wasn't written by Microsoft. Otherwise, where would it end? If a third-party program tries to delete all your user data, is it Microsoft's legal responsibility to check whenever a process is deleting a lot of data, and intervene with a confirmation dialog? Is it Microsoft's responsibility to protect you from all malware and ransomware, no matter how cleverly written? Is it Microsoft's responsibility to constantly cache program state on disk so that when a third-party program crashes, you don't lose your data since your last save? I think that's going too far, in terms of legal obligation.

grumpyprole 2y ago
Microsoft may be negligent in selling a product unsuitable for these applications. Windows is unsuitable precisely because it can be brought down by third party updates, such that it cannot recover without manual intervention by technical experts. Third party vendors are forced into writing unsafe kernel drivers because Microsoft does not provide sufficient user mode APIs. Windows has a dated design and a security model no longer fit for purpose. As for your other example, it could be protecting users from malicious programs that may delete data, simply by having a better security model, like Android and iOS.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  I don't think Microsoft can be negligent here, because Windows isn't being brought down by Microsoft updates. Somebody bought Windows, and bought CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike is negligent, and possibly also the person/org who chose to rely on Windows+CrowdStrike without a backup plan if that resulted in further damages to others. Third party vendors are absolutely not "forced into writing unsafe kernel drivers". They can properly test things to write safer code (which CrowdStrike infamously didn't). And kernel mode is fundamentally required for security software like this, as far as I understand. And using app-based mobile OS's is not necessarily a useful comparison point. They are limited in all sorts of ways that desktop OS's are not -- and don't you hear people here on HN constantly complaining about that? A better comparison point is macOS and Linux. CrowdStrike also crashed Linux, and macOS still lets you bypass SIP if you want to.
  - grumpyprole 2y ago
    > Third party vendors are absolutely not "forced into writing unsafe kernel drivers". > And kernel mode is fundamentally required for security software like this, as far as I understand. These are conflicting points. They cannot both be true.

grumpyprole 2y ago

Microsoft may be negligent in selling a product unsuitable for these applications. Windows is unsuitable precisely because it can be brought down by third party updates, such that it cannot recover without manual intervention by technical experts. Third party vendors are forced into writing unsafe kernel drivers because Microsoft does not provide sufficient user mode APIs. Windows has a dated design and a security model no longer fit for purpose. As for your other example, it could be protecting users from malicious programs that may delete data, simply by having a better security model, like Android and iOS.

crazygringo 2y ago
I don't think Microsoft can be negligent here, because Windows isn't being brought down by Microsoft updates. Somebody bought Windows, and bought CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike is negligent, and possibly also the person/org who chose to rely on Windows+CrowdStrike without a backup plan if that resulted in further damages to others. Third party vendors are absolutely not "forced into writing unsafe kernel drivers". They can properly test things to write safer code (which CrowdStrike infamously didn't). And kernel mode is fundamentally required for security software like this, as far as I understand. And using app-based mobile OS's is not necessarily a useful comparison point. They are limited in all sorts of ways that desktop OS's are not -- and don't you hear people here on HN constantly complaining about that? A better comparison point is macOS and Linux. CrowdStrike also crashed Linux, and macOS still lets you bypass SIP if you want to.
- grumpyprole 2y ago
  > Third party vendors are absolutely not "forced into writing unsafe kernel drivers". > And kernel mode is fundamentally required for security software like this, as far as I understand. These are conflicting points. They cannot both be true.