View Single Post
Old 30 July 2015, 18:06   #90
68k wisdom
meynaf's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon (France)
Age: 43
Posts: 1,934
Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag View Post
of course! Well the PC hardware architecture is bad for many reasons, although it's also "good" because people often want customisability and upgrade options, and often people complain that Amiga is not easily upgradeable. There are always trade-offs. But there is far too much legacy baggage in the PC architecture, up to and including x86 processors. The existence of some sort of security capability though, is a definite good. People have recently managed to hack such things as cars and guns, which are certainly not x86 PCs and you'd expect them to be quite simple systems.
Beware of the embedded that can be hacked. They're not as simple as they look ; usually they hide some kind of complex operating system (often a hacked linux, like android). They're rarely simple pic boards.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag View Post
Well, to repeat myself, the modern trend in consoles is to have hard drives (so there is data to corrupt and/or steal), there is network access (so a machine can be hacked remotely) increasingly always-on (as the XBone is able to wake on voice command), there is personal data stored and send back and forth, software is purchased online and downloaded rather than installed from physical media. XBox Kinnect takes photographs of you while you play!
So consoles of the 80's with their cartridges are a lot more secure than todays consoles

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag View Post
These kind of bugs exist in release versions of commercial software. You can't ensure there are absolutely no bugs in a large, team-developed project.
I'm not against activating protections against bloatware...

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag View Post
You do what you want on your own machine. You can write your own OS (like Terry A Davis with his TempleOS). The point is to stop some other programmer doing what they want with your machine - by accident or by design. You don't know what bugs or malintent, or just plain foolish assumptions, exists in someone else's software.
In theory one can do what he wants on his machine. But this is so complex that it's only theory. Honestly writing an OS on x86 (or arm, or any risc cpu) is more masochism than programmation (author of said TempleOS has been diagnosed as schizophrenic).
In addition, I can hack and crack just about every program on Amiga ; on the PC i can't do that on any.

Putting protection at the machine's level doesn't really protect - once you run an executable it's too late, it CAN do bad things.
Asking the user "are you sure you clicked here ?" isn't very smart.
Even if a program's rights are limited, it will simply not work if the privileges it asks are not granted, and count on the users to give these - as they just want to see what the program does.
So "security" at the OS level is just an illusion. There is no security.

Note that buffer overflow attacks don't work on a system without memory protection (because the address the program is located isn't constant).
meynaf is offline  
Page generated in 0.05657 seconds with 9 queries