4 ms·

Bit different than something that inherently has full access to the parent processes memory space like an iTunes plugin no?

• rdtsc 13y ago
  At the technical level that is the mechanism that makes it possible. That does little to advance the point though. It is like saying "well exploits happened because in C you can write over the array boundary". Yes that is how some of them happen. But explaining the mechanism doesn't justify or solve the problem and it takes too low of a view. I guess one can ask whether : 1) Should plugins be allowed? 2) Should plugins run in the same memory space as parent process? There are other ways. Like how come a Google Chrome tab doesn't usually succeed in corrupting or blocking another chrome tab? hmm interesting. Maybe, setup a socketpair or sharedmemory or a message and mailbox system. 3) Should signing, verifying and vetting of these plugins be done differently?
  • teacup50 13y ago
    1) Yes, 2) Yes, 3) No. This is what makes a desktop computer useful. If you don't trust code, don't run untrusted code. I also recommend not aiming loaded weapons at your own foot.
    • mitchty 13y ago
      I mostly agree, my only digression would be that iTunes should be split from the player component with plugins, and the store component. Then plugins like you had even back in the winamp days like milkdrop can stay in the player, where they belong, and keep the store stuff separate. But even this approach is less than perfect so I don't know really what a great solution would be.