4 ms·
Yes, "just as secure as proprietary OSes" who due to failed signature verification are no longer able to start notepad.exe. I think you might want to go re-rea
by Fischgericht 9mo ago
Yes, "just as secure as proprietary OSes" who due to failed signature verification are no longer able to start notepad.exe.
I think you might want to go re-read the last ~6 months of IT news in regards of "secure proprietary OSes".
- charcircuit 9mo agoJust because OpenSSL had a CVE posted about today, that didn't mean we should go back to use HTTP for the web.
- lazide 9mo agoIt does mean we should recognize that SSL is nice for some basic privacy/security, but not perfect security.
- charcircuit 9mo agoSame with remote attestation. Not all implementations are actually secure. But hopefully over time those security bugs can be ironed out and the cost to extract a key be made infeasable.
- direwolf20 9mo agoHopefully not. What you have just said is a synonym for "But hopefully over time manufacturers will be able to completely prevent users from running unapproved software."
- charcircuit 9mo agoIn the case of video game consoles that could be the case. It turned out that being able to run unapproved software results mainly in people playing pirated games. These security measures are reactive to the actions other people have taken. We already experimented with computing being the wild west where there was little to no security. It turned out that bad actors will abuse anything they can find. Even if it's not economical some attackers will still cause abuse. There's always going to be a market for computers that can run unapproved software. I don't see that going away.
- lazide 9mo agoHuh? Why should people who pay for the hardware not be able to run whatever they want? Why include them as ‘attackers’?
- direwolf20 9mo agoShareholders über alles?