Thanks for the link to Pluspora. Sounds interesting, and I should have suggested including alternatives to Google+ (when I submitted the story).
I'm also curious about what you think they got right? The only aspect I remember sort of liking about Google+ was the categorization of circles of interest.
Look at the motivations of the people creating the malware. That is how you find the better solutions.
On that basis, I'll repeat my old and oft-ignored suggestion for a different solution approach: SHOW THE MONEY!
My suggested implementation would be a "financial model" tab or section as part of the app's description. It would basically have two parts, (1) one part from the developer (or distributor) and (2) one part from the google.
(1) The developer would usually be able to select from a few well-known and legitimate options, and most apps are going to fit into those boxes. However the developer should be able to say anything, even including "The financial model of this app is a secret and I'm not going to tell you about it."
(2) The google's part would be outside of the developer's control, though there should be some negotiating room there, for example if the developer is willing to reveal extra information. In general, the google will be well positioned to report on such things as "There have been many registrations of the premium version of this app" or "Substantial advertising revenue has been paid to this developer." In trickier cases, such as the example above, the google might be able to say something like "We have confidentially reviewed the secret financial model and do not believe it to be a criminal enterprise" or "We are unable to say anything about the developer's financial model."
By following the money the potential victims will have a much better chance of avoiding getting victimized.
Time's up for now, but as usual, I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Still don't seem to be communicating effectively... Mostly I'm focusing on increasing the difficulty of the targeting for the attackers. The monolithic approach basically insures every part of the OS is always there and ready to be attacked. Diversity is a good thing, while uniformity is basically a standing invitation for the Warhol worms...
I'm pretty sure that one part of your position could be stated more clearly based on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The statements in question are the security characteristics and properties of the system, and the OS itself would be regarded as the sufficiently complicated language. By applying the theorem, you know that there are always statements about the system and parts of the system that you cannot prove, which means you cannot know if the security statements are true or not, but you also know that you can extend the new system to prove those statements. The catch is that the new and extended system now allows for the expression of new statements (still about the security of the system) that cannot be proven.
Essentially I am arguing that the race condition should be avoided by limiting the size of the critical parts of the system. The OS can be regarded as the basket with all of your eggs in it. That basket needs to be carefully guarded, but the more eggs in the basket, the harder it is to be sure all of the eggs are still okay.
The last part of your comment seems to be partly a misunderstanding of my position, but it is also true that I didn't say everything about it. Of course the system shouldn't offer the removal of features that are being used without the users' awareness. Part of the problem here is that people cannot even keep track of what is going on in any complicated black-box OS. However, the OS can make those recommendations at a relatively high level. It might be better to think of it as a kind of optimization problem, and the goal is to increase security by optimizing away some of the features that include hidden dangers.
However the "dangerous" assumption of my suggestion is that it assumes you can partition the features and functions cleanly enough. The OS would need to keep track of all of the dependencies and be ready to install (or reinstall) code that becomes necessary later on. As mapped to your comment, of course the applications will have the responsibility for invoking certain functions, but the OS must still have a high level of control over the features and functions that pose threats.
Again the font example is relatively easy to work with. You may have erased the last document that uses a particular font and the OS can determine that there is no need for that font on your system. On that basis, it might remove some unneeded fonts. But then you may receive a document that uses a font you no longer have, and now the OS needs to obtain and reinstall that font again (on behalf of the applications that can use that document).
I'd give you the funny mod if I ever had one to give. (I think the comment that currently follows this one is also bidding for a funny mod, but I'm not getting the joke yet...) Anyway, I just wrote about a reincarnation of Clippy, though I wasn't joking.
If I was a comedian, I'd try to come up with a funny expansion of MCAS. Something like Mud Capture Attack System.
I suspect you're arguing with a troll. Either that or he's never heard of the google. I find it especially interesting that when the oldsters went out, the evil started coming in. At least that's how it looks.
However mostly I wanted to chant "Hear, hear" on the reference to (wage) slaves. The employers' idea is to keep the employees divided and conquered. There are a few exceptional superstars (and the company needs such leaders to seed any dominant position), but mostly they prefer the cheapest round peg that will fit in the right hole and get the job done at minimum cost.
They actually started pushing me towards the exit around 55. My theory is that their problem was that I had too many friends in higher places, as in it had always amused me to help other people get promoted even though I was basically irreplaceable and therefore unpromotable. (Not to say that no one else could have done my work. It was just (office) politically impossible to hire anyone else.) My final managers still went rather far out of their way to make my last few years hellish. Unfortunately (as they saw it), I just classified it as endurance training and rather enjoyed it.
(Many rotating managers in that period. My theory is that part of the reason one of them was transferred down was as punishment for not getting rid of me, and another one was transferred laterally because he was basically a nice guy and wasn't interested in playing their head games. My last manager actually confessed to me that she was just desperately waiting for the date when she could retire. I think she was sincere, but maybe she was just a good actor and it was another game.)
Still, I doubt I care enough to join in the lawsuit, or even provide corroborating testimony. The part that gets my goat is how they (mostly higher management) prattle about wanting innovations while constantly rejecting all of mine. I'm pretty sure I can point at half a dozen examples where other companies have PROFITABLY seized the leads in areas where I was encouraging IBM to move... And I'm pretty sure some of my friends (both in and out) feel the same way.
These years I'm just another frustrated wannabe customer, but NOT for IBM. Just submitted some wild new product ideas to a couple of companies that might deliver the goods. Didn't even consider IBM as a candidate.
Guess that's just what happens when you're hung up on respect for the individual, customer service, and quality. Stupid old ideas, eh?
Complicated comment, but I think I mostly agree with you. I do think you could have made a couple of points more clearly.
Some parts of your comment are actually related to a longish comment I just wrote about "Clippy", so help me gawd. Essentially I'm saying the OS should stay out of my way. Clippy's mortal sin was the opposite, since Clippy was constantly getting in the way, but the underlying idea was actually a good one.
I would say that what we have now is the worst of all possible worlds. We have just a few gigantic OSes packed with obscure features that most of us never need. However because those features are embedded at the OS level, whatever security vulnerabilities those features contain are EVERYWHERE. Perhaps I'm stretching the metaphor, but Mother Nature doesn't work that way, and she has billions of years of experience in really complicated programming (with DNA).
(Currently reading The Gene by Siddhartha Mukherjee, and have already read enough to recommend it rather strongly.)
Your transition from computer security to voting systems is too rough and I am unable to follow why you think it is relevant in that form, notwithstanding the long explanation.
Are you trying to say that users should not be allowed to vote for the features they want (because voting is complicated)? If so, then I just wrote a long comment about that topic (of the users' selections of features and functions). Search for "Clippy", so help me gawd.
I'll just summarize it briefly here: Your OS should be rather aloof from what you are doing. The OS should help the applications configure themselves to do what you want to do, and your computer configuration should basically be limited to the things you are doing or that you are sufficiently likely to want to do. In the borderline cases, it should ask you. For example, if there is a feature that most people use but which you have not used in a (sufficiently) long time, then the OS should ask you if it can remove that feature from the application. (Or applications, if it is a feature used by many of them.) If you want to do something that you haven't done before, you should even be able to ask the OS for help.
The security implications are that individual configurations would vary much more widely. The targets for critical bugs should be as few as possible and protected carefully, even though there would be more targets for less serious bugs.
Subject: is a joke,but I can only clarify with a thought experiment that Microsoft probably tried and failed to implement. So help me gawd, but I actually think the idea underlying Clippy was not bad. It couldn't be done at the time, and now the entire approach has been tainted. If there were more "real" players at the OS level I think someone would have implemented it by now.
The OS should be quite aloof from what you want to do. The OS should be primarily a facilitator for applications. At the meta-level, that includes helping users find applications and helping the applications add the features and functions you actually want and need. As much as possible, that should be handled invisibly, by inference.
For a simple example, if you receive a file with a peculiar font, then the capability for that font should be added to your system without bothering you. The font should be downloaded and installed (or perhaps held in temporary storage with the temporary document if the user prefers that or if the machine has too little memory).
For a more complicated example, what happens when you want to use a different font? The failed Clippy approach might have involved an intrusive dialog like "I see you've been poking at the font menu for a while in a way that indicates you can't find the font you want. Would you like to add more fonts to your font menu or do you need help finding a specific font?" We can do better now. Let me test my voice dictation to be sure... Yes, it works well enough. I can say "I want a flashy modern font[s] with high[-]impact for [an] advertising brochure" and it is recognized well enough for me to take the initiative. Death to Clippy again! (Can't say that enough.) I don't need Clippy when I know what I want--if the OS could just respond to such statements.
As I visualize and imagine it, my computer would only have the features I actually use or am highly likely to want to use. Extremist that I am, that would go all the way down to the applications, with the OS helping applications to install the extra features as need arises, or even recommending changes in applications. Not far enough! The OS would configure the new (or upgraded) application to match my previous configuration as much as possible and even guide me to the better ways of doing things that I want to do. And yet I should still be able to insist on doing things differently even if the OS has to work harder to make it possible!
In my delusion, individual computers would be quite different and there would be very few points of massive attack. Those would obviously be the foci for the security experts...
Enough dreaming for now. It ain't going to happen because it would cut into the massive profits of the giant corporate cancers. The only real players now are Microsoft and Apple and the google, and I don't see any evidence they are considering such approaches nor any competitive pressures that could change their minds. In this context, Linux is not regarded as a "real player" because there is not enough development money to support the approach (or it would have been implemented already).
I'm not even sure how much of the original story description was based on my original submission, though I could research it. Pretty sure the original version must exist somewhere...
However my original impression when I saw the story was basically "You could say this about any serious security flaw, but they are playing up the Huawei name, either for cflickbait or propaganda." My later comment is a more clear analysis of my position, and I'm sure that one wasn't edited, though I could have messed it up in haste.
Project much? Total ignorance of Microsoft's marketing?
Or just another case of having nothing to say, you insist on saying nothing?
Go ahead. Please try to write something to convince me you have sufficient intellectual integrity to engage in an actual discussion of computer security.
Still not clear about your references. There is not much context before your initial brief comment, and you didn't provide more in your reply to my extracted sentence (on the scope of "adequately").
The original bizarrely moderated comment was certainly not helpful, though you accepted the Subject: as relevant. I regard it as merely a pale acceptance of the possibly misleading headline.
Never receiving a mod point, I can only add "Mod this up".
However, that is also biased because I think I wrote roughly the same thing, but less well. I certainly think I've seen evidence to support it even beyond my paranoia.
It would be fair to apply Hanlon's razor. Companies are quite often sloppy with security.
For additional context, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... just references "human behavior".
It isn't clear if you [Tabilizer] mean Microsoft, Huawei, or any just company that does something so stupid it seems malicious. Like Boeing in today's news.
As regards the narrow topic of fake vulnerabilities versus real mistakes, in previous variations of this topic I have suggested some of the desired features a planned security attack should have. Being implemented in visible code is NOT one of them. If the vulnerability can be discovered (as this one was), then only fools would rely on security by obscurity.
(1) "Security by obscurity" is widely regarded as a dead horse.
(2) Does anyone regard Huawei's engineers as a bunch of fools who would try to ride a dead horse?
We cannot completely rule out the possibility that it was a deliberately implanted flaw. In such a case, it would only be natural to limit the development team, increasing the likelihood of a "flaw in the flaw". In this story, a "flaw in the flaw" that led to detection. However it would be extremely foolish if Huawei had not subjected the code to careful scrutiny by a large team of experts, because Huawei knows that ALL of its code is going to get expert scrutiny.
BtW, I believe that most of the desired design-level features to support effective security breaches would be to create ways for attack code to be added only when needed and in ways that would cause the attack code to disappear if any suspicion was aroused.
If you're asking a question about how the CSB should "market" projects to potential donors, I think there are several ways. The one that is most relevant to Linux and OSS would be how-to and I-want-to-do searches. The objective is to route searches to (1) The completed project that implemented the feature or (2) The project proposal to implement a solution. The hard meta-question is what to do when the searchers' questions come up entry. On the one hand, the search engine should use those failures as feedback for places the searches need to be improved, while on the other hand the searches that really can't find any solution should be investigated from the perspective of "How can that problem be solved?"
Hard to find your comment until I figured out the right search terms. Not surprised to see it didn't get the moderation it deserved.
The topic is quite badly worded. There was a hint that the code base should be considered, and your metric of defect density is important, and you mentioned some of the other factors that can be considered, too. I was actually looking for something about size of the language itself, as well as the expressive power. Should also consider the significance of the defects that are created.
All in all, the story and the discussion (with a few exceptions like your [ytene's] comment) met my expectations for today's Slashdot. Sadly low expectations.
So you, too, have no better idea, constructive or otherwise, to offer. Just another bit of the typical Slashdot snide-ness. The best proof of the niche-status of Linux is the knee-jerk defensive reactions of the partisans. At some level you must understand there is something wrong with your perception of reality or it wouldn't upset you so much, would it?
Second best proof is the angle rms took. He apparently thinks it's a marketing problem. Stallman has become so delusional that he thinks Satan would be an "attractive" spokesman or advertising symbol for Linux. Okay, so I'll do him one better. I propose a satanic penguin as the new symbol of Linux! Surely that will persuade the heathen unwashed masses to seek salvation!
Let me try to reword my ACTUAL primary point--even though I'm quite confident that you [Baleet et al.] can't see through your own FUD. I'm saying that the real problem is the barrier to entry. Most people don't want to be bothered by climbing it, even with a boost at an install fest. Exactly what bothers them varies from person to person, but the saddest cases are probably the people who don't want to be bothered with freedom because of the effort involved. Much easier to accept and just pay for whatever "package" is shoved at them. These days that is often in the form of a smartphone with a preinstalled set of applications and some people are practically terrified by the thought of installing and having to learn a new app.
What I am suggesting is a lower barrier to entry: Just $10 in the form of a charity share to support something that donor wants to do or continue doing. Pretty clear that none of the knee-jerks understood that much.
Perhaps because it's a creative thought? Can't be that, since I absolutely deny being a creative thinker, though I've read a lot of their stuff and even know a few people who regard themselves as such. I'm just an analyst and synthesizer, and sometimes the results look a little peculiar and different... Now back to those design documents for the modular adaptable extensible voodoo smart-chair. So who makes the best smart pipe?
Yes, I am aware that Android is tightly linked to Linux, but it is a different kind of fork and definitely not part of the "install fests" of this topic. There are obviously several different financial models in play in the smartphone world, but as you pointed out the embedded devices are different. The OS is present, but essentially rendered invisible, and the users' choices are strictly at the application level. The box is black and closed and no peeking. (Okay, a little peeking, if you're really a fanatic or employed by a gatekeeper.)
I actually see my suggested CSB as an alternative financial model that can live with most of the others. The difference is to focus on cost-recovery, freedom, and accountability rather than profit and altruism.
Slashdot moderation may have become the worst aspect of Slashdot. The trolls are much more motivated to abuse the system than normal people are to defend it. In addition, the broken economic models of Slashdot render it impossible to support the kind of improvements that would be required to address the problem, essentially by reducing the value of troll identities below others.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I got a mod point to mod that one up.
Thanks for the link to Pluspora. Sounds interesting, and I should have suggested including alternatives to Google+ (when I submitted the story).
I'm also curious about what you think they got right? The only aspect I remember sort of liking about Google+ was the categorization of circles of interest.
Why are there so many dangerous apps?
Look at the motivations of the people creating the malware. That is how you find the better solutions.
On that basis, I'll repeat my old and oft-ignored suggestion for a different solution approach: SHOW THE MONEY!
My suggested implementation would be a "financial model" tab or section as part of the app's description. It would basically have two parts, (1) one part from the developer (or distributor) and (2) one part from the google.
(1) The developer would usually be able to select from a few well-known and legitimate options, and most apps are going to fit into those boxes. However the developer should be able to say anything, even including "The financial model of this app is a secret and I'm not going to tell you about it."
(2) The google's part would be outside of the developer's control, though there should be some negotiating room there, for example if the developer is willing to reveal extra information. In general, the google will be well positioned to report on such things as "There have been many registrations of the premium version of this app" or "Substantial advertising revenue has been paid to this developer." In trickier cases, such as the example above, the google might be able to say something like "We have confidentially reviewed the secret financial model and do not believe it to be a criminal enterprise" or "We are unable to say anything about the developer's financial model."
By following the money the potential victims will have a much better chance of avoiding getting victimized.
Time's up for now, but as usual, I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Z^-2
Still don't seem to be communicating effectively... Mostly I'm focusing on increasing the difficulty of the targeting for the attackers. The monolithic approach basically insures every part of the OS is always there and ready to be attacked. Diversity is a good thing, while uniformity is basically a standing invitation for the Warhol worms...
I'd try to come up with a funny expansion of MCAS.
May Cause Air Sickness
May Cure Air Sickness. It's hard to have air sickness when you're smeared across the runway as a chunky paste.
May Cure All Sickness. Ditto.
But no one got any funny mod points, not even the OP.
I'm pretty sure that one part of your position could be stated more clearly based on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The statements in question are the security characteristics and properties of the system, and the OS itself would be regarded as the sufficiently complicated language. By applying the theorem, you know that there are always statements about the system and parts of the system that you cannot prove, which means you cannot know if the security statements are true or not, but you also know that you can extend the new system to prove those statements. The catch is that the new and extended system now allows for the expression of new statements (still about the security of the system) that cannot be proven.
Essentially I am arguing that the race condition should be avoided by limiting the size of the critical parts of the system. The OS can be regarded as the basket with all of your eggs in it. That basket needs to be carefully guarded, but the more eggs in the basket, the harder it is to be sure all of the eggs are still okay.
The last part of your comment seems to be partly a misunderstanding of my position, but it is also true that I didn't say everything about it. Of course the system shouldn't offer the removal of features that are being used without the users' awareness. Part of the problem here is that people cannot even keep track of what is going on in any complicated black-box OS. However, the OS can make those recommendations at a relatively high level. It might be better to think of it as a kind of optimization problem, and the goal is to increase security by optimizing away some of the features that include hidden dangers.
However the "dangerous" assumption of my suggestion is that it assumes you can partition the features and functions cleanly enough. The OS would need to keep track of all of the dependencies and be ready to install (or reinstall) code that becomes necessary later on. As mapped to your comment, of course the applications will have the responsibility for invoking certain functions, but the OS must still have a high level of control over the features and functions that pose threats.
Again the font example is relatively easy to work with. You may have erased the last document that uses a particular font and the OS can determine that there is no need for that font on your system. On that basis, it might remove some unneeded fonts. But then you may receive a document that uses a font you no longer have, and now the OS needs to obtain and reinstall that font again (on behalf of the applications that can use that document).
I'd give you the funny mod if I ever had one to give. (I think the comment that currently follows this one is also bidding for a funny mod, but I'm not getting the joke yet...) Anyway, I just wrote about a reincarnation of Clippy, though I wasn't joking.
If I was a comedian, I'd try to come up with a funny expansion of MCAS. Something like Mud Capture Attack System.
I suspect you're arguing with a troll. Either that or he's never heard of the google. I find it especially interesting that when the oldsters went out, the evil started coming in. At least that's how it looks.
However mostly I wanted to chant "Hear, hear" on the reference to (wage) slaves. The employers' idea is to keep the employees divided and conquered. There are a few exceptional superstars (and the company needs such leaders to seed any dominant position), but mostly they prefer the cheapest round peg that will fit in the right hole and get the job done at minimum cost.
Hear, hear.
As far as the lawsuit goes, where do I sign up?
They actually started pushing me towards the exit around 55. My theory is that their problem was that I had too many friends in higher places, as in it had always amused me to help other people get promoted even though I was basically irreplaceable and therefore unpromotable. (Not to say that no one else could have done my work. It was just (office) politically impossible to hire anyone else.) My final managers still went rather far out of their way to make my last few years hellish. Unfortunately (as they saw it), I just classified it as endurance training and rather enjoyed it.
(Many rotating managers in that period. My theory is that part of the reason one of them was transferred down was as punishment for not getting rid of me, and another one was transferred laterally because he was basically a nice guy and wasn't interested in playing their head games. My last manager actually confessed to me that she was just desperately waiting for the date when she could retire. I think she was sincere, but maybe she was just a good actor and it was another game.)
Still, I doubt I care enough to join in the lawsuit, or even provide corroborating testimony. The part that gets my goat is how they (mostly higher management) prattle about wanting innovations while constantly rejecting all of mine. I'm pretty sure I can point at half a dozen examples where other companies have PROFITABLY seized the leads in areas where I was encouraging IBM to move... And I'm pretty sure some of my friends (both in and out) feel the same way.
These years I'm just another frustrated wannabe customer, but NOT for IBM. Just submitted some wild new product ideas to a couple of companies that might deliver the goods. Didn't even consider IBM as a candidate.
Guess that's just what happens when you're hung up on respect for the individual, customer service, and quality. Stupid old ideas, eh?
Complicated comment, but I think I mostly agree with you. I do think you could have made a couple of points more clearly.
Some parts of your comment are actually related to a longish comment I just wrote about "Clippy", so help me gawd. Essentially I'm saying the OS should stay out of my way. Clippy's mortal sin was the opposite, since Clippy was constantly getting in the way, but the underlying idea was actually a good one.
I would say that what we have now is the worst of all possible worlds. We have just a few gigantic OSes packed with obscure features that most of us never need. However because those features are embedded at the OS level, whatever security vulnerabilities those features contain are EVERYWHERE. Perhaps I'm stretching the metaphor, but Mother Nature doesn't work that way, and she has billions of years of experience in really complicated programming (with DNA).
(Currently reading The Gene by Siddhartha Mukherjee, and have already read enough to recommend it rather strongly.)
Your transition from computer security to voting systems is too rough and I am unable to follow why you think it is relevant in that form, notwithstanding the long explanation.
Are you trying to say that users should not be allowed to vote for the features they want (because voting is complicated)? If so, then I just wrote a long comment about that topic (of the users' selections of features and functions). Search for "Clippy", so help me gawd.
I'll just summarize it briefly here: Your OS should be rather aloof from what you are doing. The OS should help the applications configure themselves to do what you want to do, and your computer configuration should basically be limited to the things you are doing or that you are sufficiently likely to want to do. In the borderline cases, it should ask you. For example, if there is a feature that most people use but which you have not used in a (sufficiently) long time, then the OS should ask you if it can remove that feature from the application. (Or applications, if it is a feature used by many of them.) If you want to do something that you haven't done before, you should even be able to ask the OS for help.
The security implications are that individual configurations would vary much more widely. The targets for critical bugs should be as few as possible and protected carefully, even though there would be more targets for less serious bugs.
Subject: is a joke,but I can only clarify with a thought experiment that Microsoft probably tried and failed to implement. So help me gawd, but I actually think the idea underlying Clippy was not bad. It couldn't be done at the time, and now the entire approach has been tainted. If there were more "real" players at the OS level I think someone would have implemented it by now.
The OS should be quite aloof from what you want to do. The OS should be primarily a facilitator for applications. At the meta-level, that includes helping users find applications and helping the applications add the features and functions you actually want and need. As much as possible, that should be handled invisibly, by inference.
For a simple example, if you receive a file with a peculiar font, then the capability for that font should be added to your system without bothering you. The font should be downloaded and installed (or perhaps held in temporary storage with the temporary document if the user prefers that or if the machine has too little memory).
For a more complicated example, what happens when you want to use a different font? The failed Clippy approach might have involved an intrusive dialog like "I see you've been poking at the font menu for a while in a way that indicates you can't find the font you want. Would you like to add more fonts to your font menu or do you need help finding a specific font?" We can do better now. Let me test my voice dictation to be sure... Yes, it works well enough. I can say "I want a flashy modern font[s] with high[-]impact for [an] advertising brochure" and it is recognized well enough for me to take the initiative. Death to Clippy again! (Can't say that enough.) I don't need Clippy when I know what I want--if the OS could just respond to such statements.
As I visualize and imagine it, my computer would only have the features I actually use or am highly likely to want to use. Extremist that I am, that would go all the way down to the applications, with the OS helping applications to install the extra features as need arises, or even recommending changes in applications. Not far enough! The OS would configure the new (or upgraded) application to match my previous configuration as much as possible and even guide me to the better ways of doing things that I want to do. And yet I should still be able to insist on doing things differently even if the OS has to work harder to make it possible!
In my delusion, individual computers would be quite different and there would be very few points of massive attack. Those would obviously be the foci for the security experts...
Enough dreaming for now. It ain't going to happen because it would cut into the massive profits of the giant corporate cancers. The only real players now are Microsoft and Apple and the google, and I don't see any evidence they are considering such approaches nor any competitive pressures that could change their minds. In this context, Linux is not regarded as a "real player" because there is not enough development money to support the approach (or it would have been implemented already).
I'm not even sure how much of the original story description was based on my original submission, though I could research it. Pretty sure the original version must exist somewhere...
However my original impression when I saw the story was basically "You could say this about any serious security flaw, but they are playing up the Huawei name, either for cflickbait or propaganda." My later comment is a more clear analysis of my position, and I'm sure that one wasn't edited, though I could have messed it up in haste.
As in I have to run now...
Z^-1
Project much? Total ignorance of Microsoft's marketing?
Or just another case of having nothing to say, you insist on saying nothing?
Go ahead. Please try to write something to convince me you have sufficient intellectual integrity to engage in an actual discussion of computer security.
Still not clear about your references. There is not much context before your initial brief comment, and you didn't provide more in your reply to my extracted sentence (on the scope of "adequately").
The original bizarrely moderated comment was certainly not helpful, though you accepted the Subject: as relevant. I regard it as merely a pale acceptance of the possibly misleading headline.
Never receiving a mod point, I can only add "Mod this up".
However, that is also biased because I think I wrote roughly the same thing, but less well. I certainly think I've seen evidence to support it even beyond my paranoia.
It would be fair to apply Hanlon's razor. Companies are quite often sloppy with security.
For additional context, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... just references "human behavior".
It isn't clear if you [Tabilizer] mean Microsoft, Huawei, or any just company that does something so stupid it seems malicious. Like Boeing in today's news.
As regards the narrow topic of fake vulnerabilities versus real mistakes, in previous variations of this topic I have suggested some of the desired features a planned security attack should have. Being implemented in visible code is NOT one of them. If the vulnerability can be discovered (as this one was), then only fools would rely on security by obscurity.
(1) "Security by obscurity" is widely regarded as a dead horse.
(2) Does anyone regard Huawei's engineers as a bunch of fools who would try to ride a dead horse?
We cannot completely rule out the possibility that it was a deliberately implanted flaw. In such a case, it would only be natural to limit the development team, increasing the likelihood of a "flaw in the flaw". In this story, a "flaw in the flaw" that led to detection. However it would be extremely foolish if Huawei had not subjected the code to careful scrutiny by a large team of experts, because Huawei knows that ALL of its code is going to get expert scrutiny.
BtW, I believe that most of the desired design-level features to support effective security breaches would be to create ways for attack code to be added only when needed and in ways that would cause the attack code to disappear if any suspicion was aroused.
If you're asking a question about how the CSB should "market" projects to potential donors, I think there are several ways. The one that is most relevant to Linux and OSS would be how-to and I-want-to-do searches. The objective is to route searches to (1) The completed project that implemented the feature or (2) The project proposal to implement a solution. The hard meta-question is what to do when the searchers' questions come up entry. On the one hand, the search engine should use those failures as feedback for places the searches need to be improved, while on the other hand the searches that really can't find any solution should be investigated from the perspective of "How can that problem be solved?"
Hard to find your comment until I figured out the right search terms. Not surprised to see it didn't get the moderation it deserved.
The topic is quite badly worded. There was a hint that the code base should be considered, and your metric of defect density is important, and you mentioned some of the other factors that can be considered, too. I was actually looking for something about size of the language itself, as well as the expressive power. Should also consider the significance of the defects that are created.
All in all, the story and the discussion (with a few exceptions like your [ytene's] comment) met my expectations for today's Slashdot. Sadly low expectations.
So you, too, have no better idea, constructive or otherwise, to offer. Just another bit of the typical Slashdot snide-ness. The best proof of the niche-status of Linux is the knee-jerk defensive reactions of the partisans. At some level you must understand there is something wrong with your perception of reality or it wouldn't upset you so much, would it?
Second best proof is the angle rms took. He apparently thinks it's a marketing problem. Stallman has become so delusional that he thinks Satan would be an "attractive" spokesman or advertising symbol for Linux. Okay, so I'll do him one better. I propose a satanic penguin as the new symbol of Linux! Surely that will persuade the heathen unwashed masses to seek salvation!
Let me try to reword my ACTUAL primary point--even though I'm quite confident that you [Baleet et al.] can't see through your own FUD. I'm saying that the real problem is the barrier to entry. Most people don't want to be bothered by climbing it, even with a boost at an install fest. Exactly what bothers them varies from person to person, but the saddest cases are probably the people who don't want to be bothered with freedom because of the effort involved. Much easier to accept and just pay for whatever "package" is shoved at them. These days that is often in the form of a smartphone with a preinstalled set of applications and some people are practically terrified by the thought of installing and having to learn a new app.
What I am suggesting is a lower barrier to entry: Just $10 in the form of a charity share to support something that donor wants to do or continue doing. Pretty clear that none of the knee-jerks understood that much.
Perhaps because it's a creative thought? Can't be that, since I absolutely deny being a creative thinker, though I've read a lot of their stuff and even know a few people who regard themselves as such. I'm just an analyst and synthesizer, and sometimes the results look a little peculiar and different... Now back to those design documents for the modular adaptable extensible voodoo smart-chair. So who makes the best smart pipe?
Yes, I am aware that Android is tightly linked to Linux, but it is a different kind of fork and definitely not part of the "install fests" of this topic. There are obviously several different financial models in play in the smartphone world, but as you pointed out the embedded devices are different. The OS is present, but essentially rendered invisible, and the users' choices are strictly at the application level. The box is black and closed and no peeking. (Okay, a little peeking, if you're really a fanatic or employed by a gatekeeper.)
I actually see my suggested CSB as an alternative financial model that can live with most of the others. The difference is to focus on cost-recovery, freedom, and accountability rather than profit and altruism.
Something tedious like no-deal Brexit versus remain?
Naw, too boring. How about a new referendum to decide if the "Great" in "Great Britain" has become oxymoronic? Also the "United" in "United Kingdom".
Slashdot moderation may have become the worst aspect of Slashdot. The trolls are much more motivated to abuse the system than normal people are to defend it. In addition, the broken economic models of Slashdot render it impossible to support the kind of improvements that would be required to address the problem, essentially by reducing the value of troll identities below others.