Also, not all IT-managed environments use an AD login -- not all companies can afford Windows Server or need its functionality.
I say must use AD Group Policy, BECAUSE that is existing behavior --- that is: it is the stance Chrome already takes to all Administratively-definable settings: Chrome has a group policy template, but all Policy settings will be ignored unless the user is logging into a domain, and the settings are defined by a GPO: There is one alternative way to enforce policies in Chrome, which is to have a corporate Google G-Suite account with the proper seat licenses you can remotely manage Chrome browsers using Googles' services.
Anyways: If you have Windows clients, and you have an IT department that manages those clients in a professional or businesslike-way, then you are absolutely going to have an AD deployment ---- if not, then you've decided to survive Consumer-suitable default behavior and Chrome's is relatively minor compared to all of Windows 10's default consumer behaviors, such as exposed AppStore, Games, Advertising, Cortana, Tracking, etc.
and doesn't interfere with any other software on the computer
Chrome runs as a normal user identity with limited privileges and is Not a substitute for system anti-malware; it won't "interfere" with other software, because the privilege level that Chrome processes run as is an insufficient privilege level to interfere with other software. The worst thing that could happen to you is you try to open a specific document file, and it fails to open because Chrome coincidentally happens to be open and happened to be scanning that exact same document at the exact same time you tried to open it for write access.
I regularly have to install legitimate and mandatory software that fails unless I turn off AV during the installation process
Have you stopped to consider why that might be? None of that applies to what Chrome is doing which is background file scanning, and if you Exit/Quit all Chrome windows/processes, that's equivalent to "Pausing/Holding off AV" --- Chrome runs with normal user permissions. System Antivirus which is different install disruptive system services that require Administrator access to install and hook filesystem operations at a low level; in order to provide "real time/scan-on-modify" protection, and the system services are written in a manner that causes problems, at the very least delays by blocking normal file operations to await scan.
There's a good reason not to give users an option to disable anti-malware functionality. (1) When it comes to malware defense; it is necessary to try to protect users against themselves, because end users are the problem, in fact.
(2) If an advanced preference setting is available such as under chrome://flags; malware will simply hook the browser and turn off the feature.
(3) If a secure UI is available in an easy to find place, then errant users will switch it off -- or follow poorly conceived "troubleshooting" or "optimization" guides suggesting they switch off the critical security feature.
Some users will do so frivolously in the belief that they are improving system performance, "fixing something", or avoiding waste, when reality the cost of the functionality is low, and the risk reduction should be worth it for all users.
It may be reasonable for the browser to allow a Group-Policy option to switch it off in a corporate/IT-managed environment; after Chrome makes certain that the user is logged in as a Windows AD Domain joined computer as a non-administrative AD-based login user (non-local account), and the option to disable scanning is defined by a Domain/Forest-Level Group Policy Object, and not just something in the local registry, or a locally-configurable setting.
It seems that a lot of the people trying to blame the pedestrian are flat out pathological arseholes who need psychatric evaluation and should NEVER be allowed behind the wheel of a 2 ton killing machine.
Well: the pedestrian deserves a little blame for creating a danger, but it's hard to blame someone who is dead and wasn't in control of a vehicle. Maybe a human driver could not have stopped either, but a human driver exercising due care would definitely not have wound up in this situation.
I firmly believe that Uber's vehicles should be banned from the road permanently, and any reparations and criminal penalties that could be made for the death --- Uber should be required to pay the highest possible amount. Let Waymo, or another player who has a program built on a more responsible approach continue to develop the technology.
Yeah, But there's no Alexa voice control commands to tell Alexa or Sonos to play music from local NAS or from those competing cloud storage services -- It seems like you HAVE to use the music upload service or Spotify or Amazon's Music service, in order to get a song to play by voice command:-(
The poster only cares about one OS being secure. There's no reason to run his main OS as a VM as well.
Yes, there is a very good reason.... so he can suspend or pause his "main OS" while the second "less secure" OS is running to ensure there is no side-channel leakage.
Why would you need "hardware-based partitioning" for that? Kernels can already access specific parts of physical memory
BECAUSE... If there is no robust hardware-level partitioning, then that means the CPU cores share main memory and L2 cache..... Speculative execution can result in the CPU reading memory outside the specific parts of main memory that the kernel accesses into the local cache of a different core or into the L2 cache that is shared between all the CPU cores on the same die.
Either way, in a Spectre/Meltdown situation...... the CPU cache can be used as a side channel following a branch prediction for VM1 on CPU1 to read memory VM1's kernel would never have accessed.
This is like leaving your family because you feel they are hurting you, and then expecting access to the family garage and attic
In this case, Britain contributed the most money to the budget though, so they basically paid for 50 to 75% the cost of actually building most of that house; it reasons then if they leave, Britain should have the right bits of the property in proportion to the value they had paid for, and either the whole house should be sold, or Britain gets to keep most of it for its own exclusive use now.
Frankly, the.EU ccTLD should be terminated as should never have been allowed in the first place, because Europe is not a Country, but an economic association with unstable membership of Countries on the same continent, And ccTLDs are specifically for
established countries that don't randomly change in composition on the whim of some politicians.
Doesn't static core assignment to VMs prevent these kinds of attacks?
Nope. Not unless you have a platform with some hardware-based partitioning of the physical RAM so that the pinned cores cannot access memory areas used by another core during speculative execution.
I've been sitting on the sidelines and not bought in a single ICO, although there is the potential for some enormous opportunities --- Perhaps in 12-24 more months when the dust settles; people can start looking at the OLDER ICOs for ones that have some merit: and then very carefully vet the code that the ICOs represent to make sure there's an actual project with realistic expectations......
I think the idea is to avoid Spectre/Meltdown style data leaks from the Host and/or other guests.
Well, for VMware ESXi -- the product was unaffected by Meltdown (existing hypervisor protections were sufficient to prevent leaks; speculative execution didn't have a chance of crossing the VM barrier), And there were patches for Spectre: primarily to deliver Intel's microcode update, which could also be delivered with a BIOS or Windows update instead.
But it doesn't really matter: If you run as two VMs.... don't run them both at the same time... to switch from VM1 to VM2: Power down VM 1 gracefully, then power off your host for 15 seconds to purge the RAM, power your host back on, then startup VM2.
The side channel leakage can only occur if both VMs are both active at the same time.
The main obstacle to municipal broadband is the high cost; not to mention lobbying and political advertising budgets of Cable companies and Telcos ---- if word gets out you will setup a municipal broadband network; the big bad cable companys' reps flock to the area to try to convince the officials No, then if the officials aren't persuaded, they'll fund the campaigns of their opponents and try to convince the local that it's a mismanagement of public funds, next the Lawyers and bureaucrats fly in and start working out every possible way they can think of to delay the project ---- from filing lawsuits, to incumbent Telecoms deliberately sabotaging development efforts by failing or being unduly slow when required to modify their wiring to accommodate the additional pole attachments.
So I could see a value for a National Non-profit to help PROMOTE municipal broadband, by:
1. Raise money for lobbying efforts, legal funds, the promotion of municipal broadband projects, and writing grants for projects.
2. Hire full time lobbyists to fight the telecom lobbyists at the state and national level and work against the regulations and laws being passed to discourage municipal broadband --- fight in the opposite direction.
3. Provide funds to be used for legal assistance and promotion of projects such as Google fiber competing against Telco incumbents, to facilitate more competition in the broken markets.
4. Produce national advertising and reports on municipal broadband projects that have been successful; Designed to make citizens who
don't have municipal broadband feel jealous - Raise awareness and encourage more and more consumers to demand these services ---- spread the word, provide service testimonials and comparisons in the (A) Performance, (B) Speed, (C) Service, and (D) Support of these services. 5. Create a grant program that can issue funds to develop broadband, subject to condition:
(a). Grant proposals compete for funds, and the ones that provide wired high-bandwidth (10 Megabits or more upload and 20 Megabits or more download) uncapped access to the most population who don't currently have reliable wired high-bandwidth uncapped access have highest priority.
(b). The project is completed by the municipality, and the rights to 90% of the infrastructure are permanently and exclusively owned by the municipality.
(c). The project must be operational before a certain deadline no more than 2 years away and service available to a specified number of households within the planned buildout, or else repayment of the funds is due.
(d). After completion of the project; a monthly fee will be assessed for X years against all households where service would be available
(whether they chose to turn up service or not) to replenish grant funds and help fund more projects.
$120 per month for a housekeeper. She comes once per month, and works for about 3 hours
Wait... 3 hours a month, for $120 that month? Something fishy about that. That $40/hour you're paying is more than skilled professionals get around here....
This is all on the books. I issue my housekeeper a 1099 at the end of the year.
In my experience that's very unusual; from most people who have housekeepers: I hear they're hired and paid in cash the same day of service, just like babysitters, so even if there's an understanding that they are coming by regularly, there's no formal relationship -- no employee paperwork, no unemployment insurance --- the payment is always immediately made in cash at the time of service; no payroll done at specified intervals, and no records kept of previous or future dates.
A lobby group that represents AT&T, Verizon, and other telcos plans to sue states and cities....
Because states can Only be sued on matters they've consent to be sued about, and we KNOW Telcos are bound to abuse the court system to try and stall and delay anything they don't like; How about passing the Network neutrality rule Together with a preemptive removal of the exceptions carved into their sovereign immunity -- in other words, restriction or removal of privilege to sue from the Telcos, then put language in the bill that in case of federal regulation, Telecom companies operating in their state shall be bound to adhere to BOTH sets of regulations, and the state courts shall have jurisdiction over any disputes related to the state regulations, Therefore any lawsuit by the Telcos shall be referred to the state court who will then dismiss the matter with prejudice if it is a suit seeking to "negate" or "reduce" network neutrality requirements.
Paying fines, as far as I know, are tax deductible, so there is less of a motivation there than one might think.
Fines paid to a governmental entity for violation of the law are Non-deductible. See p535-056:
no deduction is allowed for penalties and fines paid to a government or specified nongovernmental entity for the violation of any law except the following.
Amounts that constitute restitution.
Amounts paid to come into compliance with the law.
Amounts paid or incurred as the result of certain court orders in which no government or specified nongovernmental agency is a party.
I seriously have no idea why autonomous cars in pre-alfa stage are on the roads.
They're SUPPOSED to be safe with a single safety driver being present to takeover the moment the self-driver fails to react or does something wrong. That's a bad approach because of how a person fatigues when they're JUST WATCHING for long periods of the time. There may be other viable solutions but the one-safety-driver solution doesn't work.... maybe they'd be better off with 2 safety drivers holding a big red "Stop Now" button.
it's an AI augmented camera array that picks up multiple markers of a persons identity, they are really pretty scary.
Nothing a suitably equipped drone or bunch of radicals hiding under blue bedsheets with cans of spraypaint to target the lenses of the camera arrays couldn't take care of....
and very powerful protections of their communications built into our legal system.
It sounds great.... I don't know of any lawyers advertising an information filing/retention/release-on-event service that would make this possible though.
Would you know of a service, where I could file documents with release instructions -- and obtain said legal protections in addition to strong technical and physical access controls that would require 2 or 3 employees to be able to verify the authenticity of the request my signed document release requirements have been met, And provide decryption of the data in a manner that it's ensured only my authorized recipient will be able to read it?
Lots of people are single, including me. I have no wife or husband.
And if I had one... I'm not sure it would be wise to entrust them with the passcode, since they would already be inherently trusted with almost everything else or soooo many other things, and there are things that exist called divorces and related risks of being betrayed; that there should be at least a FEW personal resources protected from a spouse... "just in case".
Slashdot Mirror
Also, not all IT-managed environments use an AD login -- not all companies can afford Windows Server or need its functionality.
I say must use AD Group Policy, BECAUSE that is existing behavior --- that is: it is the stance Chrome already takes to all
Administratively-definable settings: Chrome has a group policy template, but all Policy settings will be ignored unless the
user is logging into a domain, and the settings are defined by a GPO: There is one alternative way to enforce policies in Chrome,
which is to have a corporate Google G-Suite account with the proper seat licenses you can remotely manage Chrome browsers
using Googles' services.
Anyways: If you have Windows clients, and you have an IT department that manages those clients in a professional or businesslike-way,
then you are absolutely going to have an AD deployment ---- if not, then you've decided to survive Consumer-suitable default behavior and
Chrome's is relatively minor compared to all of Windows 10's default consumer behaviors, such as exposed AppStore, Games, Advertising, Cortana, Tracking, etc.
and doesn't interfere with any other software on the computer
Chrome runs as a normal user identity with limited privileges and is Not a substitute for system anti-malware; it won't
"interfere" with other software, because the privilege level that Chrome processes run as is an insufficient privilege level
to interfere with other software. The worst thing that could happen to you is you try to open a specific document file, and
it fails to open because Chrome coincidentally happens to be open and happened to be scanning that exact same document at the
exact same time you tried to open it for write access.
I regularly have to install legitimate and mandatory software that fails unless I turn off AV during the installation process
Have you stopped to consider why that might be? None of that applies to what Chrome is doing which is background file scanning, and if you Exit/Quit all Chrome windows/processes, that's equivalent to "Pausing/Holding off AV" --- Chrome runs with normal user permissions. System Antivirus which is different install disruptive system services that require Administrator access to install and hook filesystem operations at a low level; in order to provide "real time/scan-on-modify" protection, and the system services are written in a manner that causes problems, at the very least delays by blocking normal file operations to await scan.
There's a good reason not to give users an option to disable anti-malware functionality.
(1) When it comes to malware defense; it is necessary to try to protect users against themselves, because end users are the problem, in fact.
(2) If an advanced preference setting is available such as under chrome://flags; malware will simply hook the browser and turn off the feature.
(3) If a secure UI is available in an easy to find place, then errant users will switch it off -- or follow poorly conceived "troubleshooting" or "optimization" guides suggesting they switch off the critical security feature.
Some users will do so frivolously in the belief that they are improving system performance, "fixing something", or avoiding waste, when reality the cost of the functionality is low, and the risk reduction should be worth it for all users.
It may be reasonable for the browser to allow a Group-Policy option to switch it off in a corporate/IT-managed environment; after Chrome makes certain that the user is logged in as a Windows AD Domain joined computer as a non-administrative AD-based login user (non-local account), and the option to disable scanning is defined by a Domain/Forest-Level Group Policy Object, and not just something in the local registry, or a locally-configurable setting.
It seems that a lot of the people trying to blame the pedestrian are flat out pathological arseholes who need psychatric evaluation and should NEVER be allowed behind the wheel of a 2 ton killing machine.
Well: the pedestrian deserves a little blame for creating a danger, but it's hard to blame someone who is dead and wasn't in control of a vehicle.
Maybe a human driver could not have stopped either, but a human driver exercising due care would definitely not have wound up in this situation.
I firmly believe that Uber's vehicles should be banned from the road permanently, and any reparations and criminal penalties that could be made for the death --- Uber should be required to pay the highest possible amount.
Let Waymo, or another player who has a program built on a more responsible approach continue to develop the technology.
Yeah, But there's no Alexa voice control commands to tell Alexa or Sonos to play music from local NAS or from those competing cloud storage services -- It seems like you HAVE to use the music upload service or Spotify or Amazon's Music service, in order to get a song to play by voice command :-(
The poster only cares about one OS being secure. There's no reason to run his main OS as a VM as well.
Yes, there is a very good reason.... so he can suspend or pause his "main OS" while the second "less secure" OS is running to ensure there is no side-channel leakage.
Why would you need "hardware-based partitioning" for that? Kernels can already access specific parts of physical memory
BECAUSE... If there is no robust hardware-level partitioning, then that means the CPU cores share main memory and L2 cache..... Speculative execution can result in the CPU reading memory outside the specific parts of main memory that the kernel accesses into the local cache of a different core or into the L2 cache that is shared between all the CPU cores on the same die.
Either way, in a Spectre/Meltdown situation...... the CPU cache can be used as a side channel following a branch prediction for VM1 on CPU1 to read memory VM1's kernel would never have accessed.
This is like leaving your family because you feel they are hurting you, and then expecting access to the family garage and attic
In this case, Britain contributed the most money to the budget though, so they basically paid for 50 to 75% the cost of actually building most of that house; it reasons then if they leave, Britain should have the right bits of the property in proportion to the value they had paid for, and either the whole house should be sold, or Britain gets to keep most of it for its own exclusive use now.
The EU TLD is for sites based in the EU.
Frankly, the .EU ccTLD should be terminated as should never have been allowed in the first place, because Europe is not a Country, but an economic association with unstable membership of Countries on the same continent, And ccTLDs are specifically for
established countries that don't randomly change in composition on the whim of some politicians.
Doesn't static core assignment to VMs prevent these kinds of attacks?
Nope. Not unless you have a platform with some hardware-based partitioning of the physical RAM
so that the pinned cores cannot access memory areas used by another core during speculative execution.
I've been sitting on the sidelines and not bought in a single ICO, although there is the potential for some enormous opportunities --- Perhaps in 12-24 more months when the dust settles; people can start looking at the OLDER ICOs for ones that have some merit: and then very carefully vet the code that the ICOs represent to make sure there's an actual project with realistic expectations......
I think the idea is to avoid Spectre/Meltdown style data leaks from the Host and/or other guests.
Well, for VMware ESXi -- the product was unaffected by Meltdown (existing hypervisor protections were sufficient to prevent leaks; speculative execution didn't have a chance of crossing the VM barrier), And there were patches for Spectre: primarily to deliver Intel's microcode update, which could also be delivered with a BIOS or Windows update instead.
But it doesn't really matter: If you run as two VMs.... don't run them both at the same time... to switch from VM1 to VM2: Power down VM 1 gracefully, then power off your host for 15 seconds to purge the RAM, power your host back on, then startup VM2.
The side channel leakage can only occur if both VMs are both active at the same time.
The main obstacle to municipal broadband is the high cost; not to mention lobbying and political advertising budgets of Cable companies and Telcos ---- if word gets out you will setup a municipal broadband network; the big bad cable companys' reps flock to the area to try to convince the officials No, then if the officials aren't persuaded, they'll fund the campaigns of their opponents and try to convince the local that it's a mismanagement of public funds, next the Lawyers and bureaucrats fly in and start working out every possible way they can think of to delay the project ---- from filing lawsuits, to incumbent Telecoms deliberately sabotaging development efforts by failing or being unduly slow when required to modify their wiring to accommodate the additional pole attachments.
So I could see a value for a National Non-profit to help PROMOTE municipal broadband, by:
1. Raise money for lobbying efforts, legal funds, the promotion of municipal broadband projects, and writing grants for projects.
2. Hire full time lobbyists to fight the telecom lobbyists at the state and national level and work against the regulations and laws being passed to discourage municipal broadband --- fight in the opposite direction.
3. Provide funds to be used for legal assistance and promotion of projects such as Google fiber competing against Telco incumbents, to facilitate more competition in the broken markets.
4. Produce national advertising and reports on municipal broadband projects that have been successful; Designed to make citizens who
don't have municipal broadband feel jealous - Raise awareness and encourage more and more consumers to demand these services ---- spread the word, provide service testimonials and comparisons in the (A) Performance, (B) Speed, (C) Service, and (D) Support of these services.
5. Create a grant program that can issue funds to develop broadband, subject to condition:
(a). Grant proposals compete for funds, and the ones that provide wired high-bandwidth (10 Megabits or more upload and 20 Megabits or more download) uncapped access to the most population who don't currently have reliable wired high-bandwidth uncapped access have highest priority.
(b). The project is completed by the municipality, and the rights to 90% of the infrastructure are permanently and exclusively owned by the municipality.
(c). The project must be operational before a certain deadline no more than 2 years away and service available to a specified number of households within the planned buildout, or else repayment of the funds is due.
(d). After completion of the project; a monthly fee will be assessed for X years against all households where service would be available
(whether they chose to turn up service or not) to replenish grant funds and help fund more projects.
$120 per month for a housekeeper. She comes once per month, and works for about 3 hours
Wait... 3 hours a month, for $120 that month? Something fishy about that.
That $40/hour you're paying is more than skilled professionals get around here....
This is all on the books. I issue my housekeeper a 1099 at the end of the year.
In my experience that's very unusual; from most people who have housekeepers: I hear they're hired and paid in cash the same day of service,
just like babysitters, so even if there's an understanding that they are coming by regularly, there's no formal relationship -- no employee paperwork, no unemployment insurance --- the payment is always immediately made in cash at the time of service; no payroll done at specified intervals, and no records kept
of previous or future dates.
Run BOTH systems as VMs of a more secure system such as a Citrix or VMware Client Hypervisor or Qubes OS.
Why is it all about Windows running Linux as a 2nd class citizen?
It would best for Linux to be our core, and make Windows an optional subsystem of a LInux host.
A lobby group that represents AT&T, Verizon, and other telcos plans to sue states and cities....
Because states can Only be sued on matters they've consent to be sued about, and we KNOW Telcos are bound to abuse the court system to try and stall and delay anything they don't like; How about passing the Network neutrality rule Together with a preemptive removal of the exceptions carved into their sovereign immunity -- in other words, restriction or removal of privilege to sue from the Telcos, then put language in the bill that in case of federal regulation, Telecom companies operating in their state shall be bound to adhere to BOTH sets of regulations, and the state courts shall have jurisdiction over any disputes related to the state regulations, Therefore any lawsuit by the Telcos shall be referred to the state court who will then dismiss the matter with prejudice if it is a suit seeking to "negate" or "reduce" network neutrality requirements.
Paying fines, as far as I know, are tax deductible, so there is less of a motivation there than one might think.
Fines paid to a governmental entity for violation of the law are Non-deductible. See
p535-056:
Issue the fine to the MANUFACTURER of the phone for each accidental 911 call made by any mechanism other than a human typing 9-1-1 into the keypad.
They're proactively suspending to prevent more accidents in the same or other cities.
The reactive response is to begin an investigation of what happened.
I seriously have no idea why autonomous cars in pre-alfa stage are on the roads.
They're SUPPOSED to be safe with a single safety driver being present to takeover the moment the self-driver fails to react or does something wrong. That's a bad approach because of how a person fatigues when they're JUST WATCHING for long periods of the time.
There may be other viable solutions but the one-safety-driver solution doesn't work.... maybe they'd be better off with 2 safety drivers holding a big red "Stop Now" button.
The Chinese have ways of dealing with radical activists.
What... like more LCD monitors showing the activists to embarrass them?
Only works if they can (1) figure out who they are before, during, and after, and (2) catch them.
it's an AI augmented camera array that picks up multiple markers of a persons identity, they are really pretty scary.
Nothing a suitably equipped drone or bunch of radicals hiding under blue bedsheets with cans of spraypaint to target the lenses of the camera arrays couldn't take care of....
and very powerful protections of their communications built into our legal system.
It sounds great.... I don't know of any lawyers advertising an information filing/retention/release-on-event service that would make this possible though.
Would you know of a service, where I could file documents with release instructions --
and obtain said legal protections in addition to strong technical and physical access controls that would require 2 or 3 employees to be able to verify the authenticity of the request my signed document release requirements have been met,
And provide decryption of the data in a manner that it's ensured only my authorized recipient will be able to read it?
Lots of people are single, including me. I have no wife or husband.
And if I had one... I'm not sure it would be wise to entrust them with the passcode, since they would already be inherently trusted with almost everything else or soooo many other things, and there are things that exist called divorces and related risks of being betrayed; that there should be at least a FEW personal resources protected from a spouse... "just in case".