Why can't we have a computer like Amiga?

[daxb]

Originally Posted by gimbal

And then I go back 15 years in time when I was riding the same metro and then everyone was gazing at a newspaper or a book. Not much changed really, only the medium to pass the time

You cannot compare/equal newspaper and books to phones. They are too different. Apart from phones are unifit to read from.

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

well we're not talking about "the miggy" we're talking about (or i thought we were) some new system like a sort of raspberry pi/console/htpc that might pull in a few million on Kickstarter.

It's all about "a computer like Amiga" here. Did you read the thread's title ?
If it's "like Amiga" it's maybe not the miggy itself, but it's sure not some raspberry pi clone either.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Anything that gets popular will be a target, if it's got no security people will ruin everything just for fun, i never understood that attitude. Somebody hacked the Mr Beanbag website, don't ask me why.

I'm not wholly against security, only against what we call security and is currently more annoyance than anything else.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

i've already TOLD you!

Your reply told about locking things for business purpose, it did not mention any real security threat - which was what i was asking for.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Windows machines are far more popular, so obviously they are going to be a popular target. And i know Windows security isn't very good. But that's not an argument against the very idea of security.

Of course, but that's an argument against the way security is made nowadays.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Here's another problem that plagues even Amiga users, i see complaints about it on this very forum. If a program crashes, it can take out the entire system, because it can just write into memory at random. There's no resource tracking, no memory protection... nobody in their right mind would design a new system where that would happen. This is supposed to be a multitasking platform. One program gets a "null pointer error" or what have you, and you lose all your work in everything else you have open.

This is an excellent lesson for prudence, isn't it ?
When running your asm program for debug you know the risk so you save everything else, don't you ?

No memory protection ? We can have a limited one. I use enforcer as a debugging tool (and therefore will not switch for some clone without an mmu). This is enough for "null memory errors" you mention.

No resource tracking ? My own programs DO have resource tracking inside, thru my asm system framework.

About designing a new machine where a single program can bring the whole system down, well, why not giving the choice ? Protection can be active or not.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

And i'm afraid to say you really need to take your head out of the sand.

Perhaps i see things in the sand that have been incorrectly buried

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

The way people use computers has changed enormously. 30 years ago computers were either, serious business, games for children, or hobbies for geeks. Every time i go on the bus or train these days, everyone around me has their phones out, tapping away, writing messages on facebook or looking at cats. People do their shopping and banking on computers, they store all their family photos and sensitive personal information. You might personally just want to go into a cave and tinker on your own, but computing is mainstream now, and it's social.

A terminal isn't a computer, and what most people do today, don't need a computer at all but just some input device and screen, connected to some remote server.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

You asked me what the sane reasons are for locking down direct hardware access, well i've told you.

Your reply was too vague so maybe the question is worth asking again.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Anyway i do kind of wonder what you really mean by the terms "modern" and "PC", maybe by PC you mean "Windows". But at other times not. I don't know.

Whether it's "Windows" or anything else don't matter much. "modern" is what we have currently on the market, isn't it ?
And anything running bloatwares on a gigahertz machine is pc-like for me.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

You DO have direct hardware access on a modern PC, if you want to put the effort in. The operating system obviously has it or it couldn't work. You can write your own operating system if you want. Write a boot loader. I did it once.

You have a very limited access if you try to do so. First, there is so many hardware available that this access will only work on your current machine. Second, docs about hardware interfaces are all but easy to find.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

The problem with PCs on the hardware side, is that there are so many different possible configurations, hundreds of different chip sets, graphics cards, CPUs even... it would be impossible to program anything with any degree of compatibility without APIs. It's not the security model that hinders you in that respect. The advantage the Amiga has is that its hardware is always more or less the same, you know the location of the registers and what they do... yet still people managed to write games for A500 that didn't work on later models. Also Commodore really didn't want programmers to "bang the hardware" for precisely this reason, and AAA chipset wasn't planned to be backwards compatible with AGA or OCS at that level. You were supposed to use the graphics library.

I'm not exactly an advocate of accessing the hardware directly, but it should be doable at least for some programs.
You can't properly play a ProTracker module with just audio.device, for example. And some tasks are low-level by nature.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Whatever way you go about designing a system, a games programmer shouldn't have to worry about compatibility issues. If it works it should just work... this is the case on consoles, a PS3 is a PS3, an XBox 360 is an XBox 360... (well no doubt there are some edge cases but on the whole it's true). Games programmers treated the Amiga like a console, in order to get best results, and i don't blame them, i wouldn't use graphics library either if i cared about performance... but i see no reason whatsoever to go over the system's head when it comes to, for instance, file access. They did that for purposes of copy protection, of course, and back then nobody expected to install games on hard drives anyway.

That's not a reason to have bloatwares as operating systems, is it ?

Anyway, did you know that none of my programs accesses hardware directly ? I always use my own system framework, which is a mini os on top of amigaos.

Allowing a direct hw access under some conditions isn't the removeal of all apis...

Originally Posted by Thorham

Indeed, it's absolutely terrible when programming in assembly language, C is not as bad.

Personnally i prefer "fail early and fail bad" over "fail late and fail silent".

Originally Posted by Thorham

How much work do you really loose because of crashes? A few minutes? I save VERY often, even on my Winbox. Obviously memory protection should be an option at the very least, but if you're loosing real amounts of work because of crashes then you need to learn how to save

I agree. If you save your work, then crash, well, big deal. Rebooting an Amiga is nearly as fast as restarting these huge pc IDE.

Originally Posted by Thorham

You call everyone messing with their phones EVERYWHERE social? LOL As much as I like technological advancement, all those phones are just ridiculous. Seriously, take people's phones away and they'll get physical withdrawal symptoms

They look like modern zombies to me

Originally Posted by Thorham

With game engines like Unity3D it couldn't be any easier.

But you do only what that game engine allows you to do, iow you've got limited freedom.

[gimbal]

Originally Posted by daxb

You cannot compare/equal newspaper and books to phones. They are too different. Apart from phones are unifit to read from.

I can compare them, I am not in this case (only the act of using them to pass time), and they are perfectly fit to read from.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by meynaf

Personnally i prefer "fail early and fail bad" over "fail late and fail silent".

Wouldn't memory protection detect such bad failures? There are also silent bugs that won't get noticed without memory protection while they would with the protection. One example is a bug altering some code somewhere. Very bad, but undetectable without memory protection until that code gets executed.

Originally Posted by meynaf

They look like modern zombies to me

I find them highly amusing

Originally Posted by meynaf

But you do only what that game engine allows you to do, iow you've got limited freedom.

Depends on the engine. Unity3D allows you to do just about anything. It gives you a bunch of systems that you can tie together how you see fit. Certainly a reasonable way to make certain kinds of software, unless you want to write everything from scratch. On the Amiga that can be interesting, on the peecee it may be an annoyance.

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Thorham

Wouldn't memory protection detect such bad failures? There are also silent bugs that won't get noticed without memory protection while they would with the protection. One example is a bug altering some code somewhere. Very bad, but undetectable without memory protection until that code gets executed.

Memory protection doesn't detect everything, e.g. when you inadvertently alter your own data - which is more common than altering code (and usually a lot harder to debug).
Anyway this only shows memory protection as a debug tool - doesn't imply all programs should run under it. As many things, i see it as something you should be able to activate or not.

Originally Posted by Thorham

Depends on the engine. Unity3D allows you to do just about anything. It gives you a bunch of systems that you can tie together how you see fit. Certainly a reasonable way to make certain kinds of software, unless you want to write everything from scratch. On the Amiga that can be interesting, on the peecee it may be an annoyance.

But you still have to instanciate objects to do things, don't you ?
How long is it to just setup a display and show some kind of image on it ?

[amiga_Forever]

Originally Posted by amiman99

In today's world if some software runs too slow, they tell you upgrade your hardware or buy a new computer. Back then you had to squeeze performance from your PC by optimizing your code.

how times have changed ..

Look. no one loved Amiga more than me but I'd agree there is no demand....

However there WAS demand for it back in the day.... so there is an argument for that one, plus the company was still alive (a very good argument)

[Mrs Beanbag]

Originally Posted by meynaf

It's all about "a computer like Amiga" here. Did you read the thread's title ?

yeah but we were going off on this tangent (or at least i was):

Originally Posted by jezry

I agree with turrican a console style all in one machine would be a good idea. If Acube or A-eon where to build it like that in a price range like the consoles out now i think they would sell alot more ng amigas. Hell even my wife would have thought it was fun to have an console like that.

Originally Posted by meynaf

I'm not wholly against security, only against what we call security and is currently more annoyance than anything else.

So basically you're against Windows... join the club!

Your reply told about locking things for business purpose, it did not mention any real security threat - which was what i was asking for.

Microsoft didn't want anyone running unsigned code. Preventing hackers from doing things you don't want them to do is "security". They succeeded admirably in a technical sense, maybe not so much in a business or ethical sense.

This is an excellent lesson for prudence, isn't it ?
When running your asm program for debug you know the risk so you save everything else, don't you ?

I never mentioned that. Any program can have bugs, the bigger the project the more bugs it will have, and they won't all be known. I have fixed so many null, uninitialised or dangling pointer bugs, they are the most common and can do real damage to a system with no memory protection. If you are designing a modern system for modern needs it really is a must.

Your reply was too vague so maybe the question is worth asking again.

i've gone into loads of detail with specific examples... not good enough? can't be bothered. do your own research.

You have a very limited access if you try to do so. First, there is so many hardware available that this access will only work on your current machine. Second, docs about hardware interfaces are all but easy to find.

Exactly what i said! And that's the problem, not "security". Something "amiga-like" would have a single, well documented spec.

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

So basically you're against Windows... join the club!

I'm against Windows, right, but i'm also against Linux, iOs, Android, and many others.
The hardware architecture is also important (i'm against x86, arm, and many others).
Right, i know, i'm against many things

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Microsoft didn't want anyone running unsigned code. Preventing hackers from doing things you don't want them to do is "security". They succeeded admirably in a technical sense, maybe not so much in a business or ethical sense.

Ok, but my question was more : what's the danger for the end user, which would require security stuff in a home game console ? (apart a secure connection to pay things)

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

I never mentioned that. Any program can have bugs, the bigger the project the more bugs it will have, and they won't all be known. I have fixed so many null, uninitialised or dangling pointer bugs, they are the most common and can do real damage to a system with no memory protection. If you are designing a modern system for modern needs it really is a must.

Protection for debug purposes is something different compared to forcing everyone to run in a locked system with no choice.
My A1200 ran Enforcer quite a few times, and this alone catches many null, unitialised or dangling pointers. This is not a reason to forbid these accesses permanently - and thus destroy the programmer's freedom.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

i've gone into loads of detail with specific examples... not good enough? can't be bothered. do your own research.

My own research is already done, thanks. And in none of your examples did i see anything worth keeping the programmer out of control of his own machine.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Exactly what i said! And that's the problem, not "security". Something "amiga-like" would have a single, well documented spec.

Does this mean that (according to you) a single, well documented spec would be a problem ?

[Mrs Beanbag]

Originally Posted by meynaf

I'm against Windows, right, but i'm also against Linux, iOs, Android, and many others.
The hardware architecture is also important (i'm against x86, arm, and many others).
Right, i know, i'm against many things

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.

Ok, but my question was more : what's the danger for the end user, which would require security stuff in a home game console ? (apart a secure connection to pay things)

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!

Protection for debug purposes is something different compared to forcing everyone to run in a locked system with no choice.

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.

My own research is already done, thanks. And in none of your examples did i see anything worth keeping the programmer out of control of his own machine.

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.

Does this mean that (according to you) a single, well documented spec would be a problem ?

Absolutely not! It's exactly what i suggest we should have.

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

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

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

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

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).

[NorthWay]

Originally Posted by meynaf

My A1200 ran Enforcer quite a few times, and this alone catches many null, unitialised or dangling pointers. This is not a reason to forbid these accesses permanently - and thus destroy the programmer's freedom.

You are threading a fine line here... while I agree that it should be possible to do "whatever you want" on a personal machine, the only ones with a need for it are pure hackers (programmers, people running gfx rippers, sound rippers, mod rippers etc), and even then I see no reason to write to 0 as it is off-limits for all and anything.

To have read-access to anything you should have to go a lot of extra miles (a "root" type user would have been an appropriate way of achieving it), to write to non-system memory it should suffice with a "root" type of raised access level, but to write to absolutely anything then a proper OS would more or less have to commit suicide as it can't guarantee anything any more.
Of course, a proper OS would give you many ways of modifying stuff through an API, probably all you could want?

[Mrs Beanbag]

Originally Posted by meynaf

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.

well automotive CPUs can certainly be quite beefy, but if you think Amigas can't be hacked because of their simplicity, if i were a gambler i'd be willing to put money against it. Anything that has an IP address can probably be hacked.
http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=3554

So consoles of the 80's with their cartridges are a lot more secure than todays consoles

simply because they are so limited in what they can do, and have no non-volatile storage, only a small amount of RAM and ROM.

I'm not against activating protections against bloatware...

not every large project is necessarily bloatware. It is only natural that the size and complexity of software projects is going to increase.

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).

Linux is open source... if you don't want to write an entire OS, you can at least write kernel modules and drivers.

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.

if a program i don't know what it does asks for root privileges, i will certainly not be authorising it... if a game asks "can i write to your MBR?"... nope... what did you say about problem between keyboard and chair?

Security is only as strong as the user... well, ok, at least then maybe we can blame the user! But maybe you are assuming only one kind of security model is possible. We have to use our imaginations.

Note that buffer overflow attacks don't work on a system without memory protection (because the address the program is located isn't constant).

it doesn't need to be, even with protection...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addres..._randomization
Amiga's ROM functions are always at fixed addresses anyway, and if you write to $4 you can nuke entire OS.

Of course we could implement very minimal memory protection, which only protects memory and doesn't remap it.

[brett71]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

simply because they are so limited in what they can do, and have no non-volatile storage, only a small amount of RAM and ROM.

Not to mention that consoles today are more dependent on the Internet, which opens up many attack vectors. 80's consoles were secure because they were stand-alone, so unless you had physical access to the console, it was impossible to compromise it.

[Mrs Beanbag]

well you could do Van Eck Phreaking, and watch someone else playing Sonic the Hedgehog from across the street...

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by NorthWay

You are threading a fine line here... while I agree that it should be possible to do "whatever you want" on a personal machine, the only ones with a need for it are pure hackers (programmers, people running gfx rippers, sound rippers, mod rippers etc), and even then I see no reason to write to 0 as it is off-limits for all and anything.

Write to $0 is useless, okay. But write to $100 (my fave debug output address) ? Or to $DFF180 ?

Originally Posted by NorthWay

To have read-access to anything you should have to go a lot of extra miles (a "root" type user would have been an appropriate way of achieving it), to write to non-system memory it should suffice with a "root" type of raised access level, but to write to absolutely anything then a proper OS would more or less have to commit suicide as it can't guarantee anything any more.

The OS doesn't have to guarantee anything at all. We're talking about personal computers, not servers.

Originally Posted by NorthWay

Of course, a proper OS would give you many ways of modifying stuff through an API, probably all you could want?

Hmm, think about security for an API such as SetFunction... APIs don't solve everything.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

well automotive CPUs can certainly be quite beefy, but if you think Amigas can't be hacked because of their simplicity, if i were a gambler i'd be willing to put money against it. Anything that has an IP address can probably be hacked.
http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=3554

IMO to hack an Amiga you must have a physical access to it. Merely connecting it with an IP address doesn't make it vulnerable - what kind of attack would work ?

And even, any such attack wouldn't go unnoticed and have minimal impact. I see abnormal network access ? Well, i disconnect MiamiDx and your attempt to remotely control my Miggy just fails.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

simply because they are so limited in what they can do, and have no non-volatile storage, only a small amount of RAM and ROM.

So more simple = more secure. And they are not that limited.
Btw. many cartridges have non-volatile storage (for saved games). This doesn't make the console vulnerable.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

not every large project is necessarily bloatware. It is only natural that the size and complexity of software projects is going to increase.

This is where we don't agree
There is nothing natural for projects to be real big.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Linux is open source... if you don't want to write an entire OS, you can at least write kernel modules and drivers.

This is equally painful for me.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

if a program i don't know what it does asks for root privileges, i will certainly not be authorising it... if a game asks "can i write to your MBR?"... nope... what did you say about problem between keyboard and chair?

The requirements are more subtle. It might just require some access to your /usr/bin dir, or something like that...
Note : windows programs just ask for altering your computer, without saying how.

So what i said is the biggest security problem is what touches both the chair and the keyboard, i.e. the user.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Security is only as strong as the user... well, ok, at least then maybe we can blame the user! But maybe you are assuming only one kind of security model is possible. We have to use our imaginations.

What is sure is that nothing is foolproof. So i prefer something open, where i can do whatever i want.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

it doesn't need to be, even with protection...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addres..._randomization
Amiga's ROM functions are always at fixed addresses anyway, and if you write to $4 you can nuke entire OS.

You can't write to $4 with a buffer overflow attack (you could JUMP to $4, which is pointless, however).

Note that this kind of attack normally won't affect an ASM program because the asm programmer is (or should be ) smart enough to avoid putting large structures in the stack. Try such attacks on whichever program of mine if you don't believe me.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Of course we could implement very minimal memory protection, which only protects memory and doesn't remap it.

This is more or less what we have already.

Originally Posted by brett71

Not to mention that consoles today are more dependent on the Internet, which opens up many attack vectors. 80's consoles were secure because they were stand-alone, so unless you had physical access to the console, it was impossible to compromise it.

I'll add that this dependency isn't necessary a good thing ; why, they even want to make all games depend on it.

[Mrs Beanbag]

Originally Posted by meynaf

The OS doesn't have to guarantee anything at all. We're talking about personal computers, not servers.

of course they have to guarantee internal consistency of the kernel, or behaviour becomes completely unpredictable. It is not safe to continue using such a system.

IMO to hack an Amiga you must have a physical access to it. Merely connecting it with an IP address doesn't make it vulnerable - what kind of attack would work ?

i'm no hacking expert, but i really don't know how you can be so sure. i am not so sure. but if someone did get in, they could do anything.
EDIT: well here is something i could try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping_of_death

And even, any such attack wouldn't go unnoticed and have minimal impact. I see abnormal network access ? Well, i disconnect MiamiDx and your attempt to remotely control my Miggy just fails.

too bad they already quickformatted your hard disk.

So more simple = more secure. And they are not that limited.
Btw. many cartridges have non-volatile storage (for saved games). This doesn't make the console vulnerable.

Sure, i have a rock on my desk and i bet you can't hack it to fall upwards instead of down. The argument gets really silly here. What, exactly, could you possibly gain by hacking someone else's NES?

This is where we don't agree
There is nothing natural for projects to be real big.

Computer programs do more things than they used to, all that extra memory and CPU power isn't just pointless you know, they didn't bother with advancing technology just to waste it all. New features have been invented and people want to be able to use them!

So what i said is the biggest security problem is what touches both the chair and the keyboard, i.e. the user.

that's the final frontier of security, and something that's not easy to do anything about, but if your computer has NO security, all it means is the smart user just doesn't trust their computer enough to do so many of the things we now take for granted. No buying things on Amazon, no posting to Facebook...

What is sure is that nothing is foolproof. So i prefer something open, where i can do whatever i want.

this is like the argument of the smoker who reasons that people sometimes get cancer anyway so they might as well smoke a pack a day...

You can't write to $4 with a buffer overflow attack (you could JUMP to $4, which is pointless, however).

you could jump to various exec library functions... anyway there are more attacks than just buffer overflow. That is a very old and basic exploit.

Note that this kind of attack normally won't affect an ASM program because the asm programmer is (or should be ) smart enough to avoid putting large structures in the stack. Try such attacks on whichever program of mine if you don't believe me.

Great! as long as your own programs are well written, it doesn't matter if you run anything else that was written in C by somebody else... i feel like we're going round in circles...

This is more or less what we have already.

No. the Amiga has NO memory protection already. ok it has a flat memory model without remapping but it doesn't protect one process's memory from any other's, or the OS from anybody.

I'll add that this dependency isn't necessary a good thing ; why, they even want to make all games depend on it.

well i'm sceptical of that as well, but if they have any network access for any game at any time, they'll want a security model.

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

of course they have to guarantee internal consistency of the kernel, or behaviour becomes completely unpredictable. It is not safe to continue using such a system.

Nothing is really safe in the world of computing, you know. At least when you have "no security", you're not fooled in a false security belief.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

i'm no hacking expert, but i really don't know how you can be so sure. i am not so sure. but if someone did get in, they could do anything.

To get in you must be able to execute code. Think twice about this.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

EDIT: well here is something i could try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping_of_death

Oh fine, you can crash a machine at a distance (actually, freeze it). That's not taking full control at all.
Btw. I've seen a Windows box freeze because of such an attack, but they don't work on Amiga's tcp stacks.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

too bad they already quickformatted your hard disk.

Too slow. They didn't have enough time to make the machine download their code. Why the heck would they want to do that is beyond me, btw.

Using your way of thinking : perhaps you should invest in some kevlar coverall ; and nevermore get out of your home without it. Someone may well be waiting you with a gun. Security, you know

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Sure, i have a rock on my desk and i bet you can't hack it to fall upwards instead of down. The argument gets really silly here. What, exactly, could you possibly gain by hacking someone else's NES?

Nothing could be gained indeed. But what can be gained in hacking someone's xbox ?

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Computer programs do more things than they used to, all that extra memory and CPU power isn't just pointless you know, they didn't bother with advancing technology just to waste it all. New features have been invented and people want to be able to use them!

Sorry, but the same features could be there without extremely large code.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

that's the final frontier of security, and something that's not easy to do anything about, but if your computer has NO security, all it means is the smart user just doesn't trust their computer enough to do so many of the things we now take for granted. No buying things on Amazon, no posting to Facebook...

You need no security on your side to go on these sites.
If you go on warez sites - then yes you may need something.

The first security is to get a decent browser.
The second is to avoid going on dangerous sites without care (and not run the executables you find there, of course).
With that you don't even need an antivirus.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

this is like the argument of the smoker who reasons that people sometimes get cancer anyway so they might as well smoke a pack a day...

You're right. Don't get out of your home again, it's dangerous

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

you could jump to various exec library functions... anyway there are more attacks than just buffer overflow. That is a very old and basic exploit.

There are very few ways to execute foreign code on a connected machine, you know.
Script injection will not work. Phishing will not work. What else ?

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Great! as long as your own programs are well written, it doesn't matter if you run anything else that was written in C by somebody else... i feel like we're going round in circles...

So you think we should mess up the whole system just to run badly written programs ?

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

No. the Amiga has NO memory protection already. ok it has a flat memory model without remapping but it doesn't protect one process's memory from any other's, or the OS from anybody.

You forget about a few mmu tools, which offer some basic protection.

The goal isn't to protect against processes doing bad things. When such a process is running, it's already too late - regardless of the security of the machine.
Remember that this security can be returned against you - a rootkit taking full control of your machine is a lot harder to remove than an Amiga virus.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

well i'm sceptical of that as well, but if they have any network access for any game at any time, they'll want a security model.

This security model is called SSL or something like that. No memory protection is needed to use it.

Do you lock doors inside your home when you leave ? No, you just lock the door to the outside.
So there is no need for any protection against processes running on the computer. Only the network software needs it.

Do you see the point ?

When bad code gets executed it is TOO LATE.
Taking control of a machine is tricking the user to execute some code.
Simply connecting a machine doesn't make it vulnerable.

Btw. Oh, and don't forget your armor next time you go shopping. Who knows what can happen.

[meynaf]

After rereading a few posts i see we're a little bit OT in here.
As a new Amiga, should one exist, has very few chances to become a mainstream machine - we're in a niche market.
So security is pointless - we're not targeted.

[Mrs Beanbag]

Originally Posted by meynaf

Too slow. They didn't have enough time to make the machine download their code. Why the heck would they want to do that is beyond me, btw.

Never assume people's motivations. Why the heck would anyone want to hack the Mr Beanbag website? People hack because they can. People hack for the lulz.

Nothing could be gained indeed. But what can be gained in hacking someone's xbox ?

for goodness sake this is like playing whack-a-mole.

THEY COULD BUY STUFF WITH YOUR MONEY AND LISTEN TO YOU AND WATCH YOU IN YOUR OWN HOME.

Sorry, but the same features could be there without extremely large code.

You can't have lots of features without lots of code...

You need no security on your side to go on these sites.

I type my credit card number in when i buy things online. A key logger could have got in through some other route. The narrowness of your thinking is astounding.

If one program on your system has an exploit allowing someone to inject code, your entire system is open, not just that one program.

And it isn't necessarily badly written. Security is HARD. That is why it is imperative to limit the damage malicious code can do if it gets in.

They managed to plant malicious code in a Jeep over its DAB radio.

SSL only protects against someone eavesdropping on the communication, it doesn't guarantee the safety of the content.

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Never assume people's motivations. Why the heck would anyone want to hack the Mr Beanbag website? People hack because they can. People hack for the lulz.

And memory protection did not protect the site.
A good firewall (perhaps) would have.
And guess what : Amigas also can run firewall software.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

for goodness sake this is like playing whack-a-mole.

THEY COULD BUY STUFF WITH YOUR MONEY AND LISTEN TO YOU AND WATCH YOU IN YOUR OWN HOME.

Uh, no, i don't think they can do that. Or you have to tell me how.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

You can't have lots of features without lots of code...

Features require some code. But not THAT MUCH code.
You can't imagine the features that can fit in just 20kb of code.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

I type my credit card number in when i buy things online. A key logger could have got in through some other route. The narrowness of your thinking is astounding.

If you think that memory protection will prevent a keylogger from running, then it's your own narrowness of thinking that's astounding.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

If one program on your system has an exploit allowing someone to inject code, your entire system is open, not just that one program.

This is true even for memory protected systems. Again, when code is allowed to run, it's too late.

... apart that if malicious code runs on a miggy then it's noticed a lot faster.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

And it isn't necessarily badly written. Security is HARD. That is why it is imperative to limit the damage malicious code can do if it gets in.

Security is hard because systems are too complex.
Btw. do you have a gun at home to limit the malicious damage, should someone enter anyway ?

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

They managed to plant malicious code in a Jeep over its DAB radio.

And that jeep did run a memory protected system, which did not help.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

SSL only protects against someone eavesdropping on the communication, it doesn't guarantee the safety of the content.

Memory protection will not either. In fact, nothing will.