4 ms·

Think about the largest, most complex codebase you've ever worked on. Then, remove any architecture documentation, wikis, etc. used to document how it's all tie

Think about the largest, most complex codebase you've ever worked on. Then, remove any architecture documentation, wikis, etc. used to document how it's all tied together. Then, remove the build scripts and any lib folders. Imagine how much fun it'd be trying to get that to build. Multiply the terror that inspires by (at least) 100x.

patio11 13y ago
I think everything you say is likely to be accurate. However, given that we're talking about a nation state in an adversarial context, remember the relevant comparison is "Express the pain of black-box reconstructing the Windows build process in terms of ACEs (aircraft carrier equivalents)." I very much doubt that building Windows is a 10 ACE problem, or a 1 ACE problem, or a 0.1 ACE problem.
- kro0ub 13y ago
  Where can more info be found on the "ACE" metric?
  - mechanical_fish 13y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane's_Fighting_Ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane's_Fighting_Ships Or if you're lazy you just Google up this Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_t... The USA has ten active Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. Wikipedia claims that the most recent, the USS George H.W. Bush, was completed in 2009 at a cost of $6.2 billion. A bargain compared to the projected cost of the USS Gerald R. Ford, now under construction with a budget of $15.5 billion. These numbers are ridiculously overlarge in this context, of course, which is the point. Access to the Windows build toolchain is not even a $10M project. It's not a technical problem. You start by just offering the money to the company. A few million dollars, plus a history of enforcing your TOP SECRET security clearances, plus credible assurances that you're not going to launch a competing product, is probably enough to convince the company to just give you what you want. Quietly, of course. No need to spook the other customers. If that doesn't work, there's always espionage.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  If Windows has ever been built from sources provided by Microsoft plus reverse-engineering the missing bits in the toolchain, that build has never been deployed by governments as a "certified clean" Windows. One problem is that you not only have to succeed in building and running, and compatibility-testing Windows from a snapshot of the source code (which, as a snapshot, might not correspond to any release), you have to keep up with patches and new releases. So if that ever had been done, the utility would be limited. Perhaps some modules would match bit-for-bit. What would that tell you? That's still very unlike being able to audit source code, audit updates, and build from audited code using an identical toolchain, also built from audited code, as an upstream release. I also think your "ACE" metric turns out to be larger than you think, once you add in an air wing and escort and support ships. Launching a ship that is an aircraft carrier is a bit like booting a kernel with no userland.

patio11 13y ago

I think everything you say is likely to be accurate. However, given that we're talking about a nation state in an adversarial context, remember the relevant comparison is "Express the pain of black-box reconstructing the Windows build process in terms of ACEs (aircraft carrier equivalents)." I very much doubt that building Windows is a 10 ACE problem, or a 1 ACE problem, or a 0.1 ACE problem.

kro0ub 13y ago
Where can more info be found on the "ACE" metric?
- mechanical_fish 13y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane's_Fighting_Ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane's_Fighting_Ships Or if you're lazy you just Google up this Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_t... The USA has ten active Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. Wikipedia claims that the most recent, the USS George H.W. Bush, was completed in 2009 at a cost of $6.2 billion. A bargain compared to the projected cost of the USS Gerald R. Ford, now under construction with a budget of $15.5 billion. These numbers are ridiculously overlarge in this context, of course, which is the point. Access to the Windows build toolchain is not even a $10M project. It's not a technical problem. You start by just offering the money to the company. A few million dollars, plus a history of enforcing your TOP SECRET security clearances, plus credible assurances that you're not going to launch a competing product, is probably enough to convince the company to just give you what you want. Quietly, of course. No need to spook the other customers. If that doesn't work, there's always espionage.
Zigurd 13y ago
If Windows has ever been built from sources provided by Microsoft plus reverse-engineering the missing bits in the toolchain, that build has never been deployed by governments as a "certified clean" Windows. One problem is that you not only have to succeed in building and running, and compatibility-testing Windows from a snapshot of the source code (which, as a snapshot, might not correspond to any release), you have to keep up with patches and new releases. So if that ever had been done, the utility would be limited. Perhaps some modules would match bit-for-bit. What would that tell you? That's still very unlike being able to audit source code, audit updates, and build from audited code using an identical toolchain, also built from audited code, as an upstream release. I also think your "ACE" metric turns out to be larger than you think, once you add in an air wing and escort and support ships. Launching a ship that is an aircraft carrier is a bit like booting a kernel with no userland.