Re:You Don't Even Need Special Code to Detect VMwa
on
Attacking Sandboxes
·
· Score: 1
Setup a callgate, call it, the exceptions generated will be subtlety wrong. There's a lot of real weird stuff in the Intel instruction set that VMWare doesn't even try to emulate because the only OS that uses even 1% of it is OS2.
These are so called WONTFIX bugs.. all VMs have them. There ain't enough hours in the day to worry about every nook and cranny of the x86 architecture.
It's not about being able to sniff packets. That just makes it more applicable because, back then, you didn't need to be upstream. Today, if you're upstream of an end point you can hijack a TCP connection.
It's pretty trivial to find a dozen ways to detect a virtual machine, just make a project that generates some random bytes and then jump to the bytes. Put the program in a script that calls it over and over again with a seed for the random number generator. When the VM crashes, look at the last seed that was used. Run the program again with that seed to confirm it is repeatable. This also happens to be a good way to detect if your VM is any good and fix it when it isn't. Unfortunately, many things are just so obscure on the x86 architecture that fixing all these bugs is just a chore that doesn't get you any big payout (as no real code uses these obscure things) so most VM developers don't bother.
uhhh.. TCP hijacking is almost just as easy now as it was 10 years ago. Back then you didn't have a whole lot of switches (they were much more expensive than hubs) so you could sniff packets for other hosts easier, but the act of hijacking TCP connections is still a major flaw in the protocol. We just work around it.
I'm obviously not making this clear. That bit at the end of the oath, "so help you God", and having your hand on the bible, that's what the oath is all about. The alternative, an affirmation, exists and is just as strong, but you're saying that you'd rather just go along with the oath, even though to you it is just a farce. You don't believe in God, so it is simply dishonest of you to swear an oath to Him.
Well, the GPLv3 specifically addresses this issue and makes it compatible to link such things. There's a nice little list of what is an ok restriction in there, but you can't add more things to it (until the next version). This is to stop people from saying "oh, and if you copy this, you have to pay me a royalty."
namely if the book is to be sold (new) the copyright holder has a right to a royalty. I don't think he has any such right.. at least not a moral right.. he certainly has a right under law, but that's hardly something we can argue about. We choose to pay him a royalty because we believe that it will encourage him to write more books of that caliber. Or, if we make him really rich, it might encourage others to write more books of that caliber. But it is our choice.
Stories of kids who live off the hit song their father wrote in the 1960s are stories of injustice. It's not sour grapes to think that there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that results in that kind of thing. No song is worth, to society, the loss of an entire life of contribution. I don't even condone that kind of assessment (!) but that's exactly the kind of language under which copyright is justified, so it is necessary to phrase objections in the same language.
GPL version 2 had no restrictions on what hardware was required upon which to run the software. The license merely required that all modifications to the software were contributed back to the original work. It did not care how you used the software, merely how you contributed back to the project. Uhh, no. And this is what happens when you get your concepts of the GPL from Linus instead of actually reading it.
The GPL says absolutely nothing like that. Linus did, but that's Linus' opinion.
What the GPL says is that that you must respect the 4 freedoms, and one of the requirements to do that is to make the source code available to the users of the software. To sum it up: it's about the users.
So you're telling us that you would lie in a court of law, not only about your innocence or guilt, but also about the most sacramental part of the legal process.. and that you feel the whole this is so trivial you compare it to keeping your girlfriend from crying.
In general, contracts don't extend to anyone but the contracted. So, if I ask you if I can borrow your rental car and you say yes, even though the contract between you and the rental car company says you are not permitted to lend me the car, it's your problem, not mine. The rental car is able to sue you for breach on contract. Of course, they wouldn't, because they're not manic control freaks like software companies, who seen any form of sharing of their product as "lost revenue".
Arfken? Like Mathematical Methods for Physicists, Arfken? I missed that one.
Yes, sounds reasonable. I don't really have any problem with people willingly entering into agreements not to distribute software. I do have a problem with being bound to an agreement that I didn't enter into willingly because someone who did willingly enter into that agreement broke the agreement and gave me a copy of the software. That's the bit that copyright enforces, and it's wrong.
Because some people are obsessed with gaining the upper hand. They just don't like the fact that people are free. The people I'm talking about are the record companies and the movie industries and the proprietary software companies of this world. They want to keep making money and the only way they can do that is by restricting people. The fact that you can't just write in a license "I want all users of this software to be free to run it for any purpose, modify it and redistribute it, if you're doing anything which prevents this, you can't use my software" and you have to enumerate all the different ways that people can violate the rights of the users of the software is why we need to have license updates. This changes the status quo and some people just can't handle that either.
The GPL was designed to ensure that all users of the software have the freedom to run, modify and redistribute it. Tivoization is seen by RMS and many others as a technical way to sidestep that. As such, it is right and proper for an updated version of the GPL to include some provisions to stop this.
I agree with the anti-tivoization provisions because I understand Free Software. So long as you keep saying "well, customers can just choose not to buy that" then you're missing the entire point of the GPL. The restrictions in the GPL are there to ensure that all the users of the software have freedom. If you're happy with "vote with your feet" then the BSD is all you need. After all, people can just choose not to buy proprietary software as much as they can just choose not to buy locked down hardware. The restrictions on tivoization of hardware are exactly the same as the restrictions on making proprietary software. It's consistent and it makes sense.
Does swearing on the Bible in a court of law bring morality into a legal matter? That's exactly why they get you to swear on a bible.
And if you don't believe in the sanctity of that act then you've got no right doing it. You should ask for the option of making an affirmation instead.
Linus' idea of freedom is that he should be free but he's not going to hold anyone responsible if they choose not to allow him to have his freedom. He's like "man, it's be sweet if there was source code for this" whereas RMS is like "you there who doesn't provide source code for this program, you are stopping me from being free, this is wrong."
Slashdot Mirror
Setup a callgate, call it, the exceptions generated will be subtlety wrong. There's a lot of real weird stuff in the Intel instruction set that VMWare doesn't even try to emulate because the only OS that uses even 1% of it is OS2.
These are so called WONTFIX bugs.. all VMs have them. There ain't enough hours in the day to worry about every nook and cranny of the x86 architecture.
It's not about being able to sniff packets. That just makes it more applicable because, back then, you didn't need to be upstream. Today, if you're upstream of an end point you can hijack a TCP connection.
It's pretty trivial to find a dozen ways to detect a virtual machine, just make a project that generates some random bytes and then jump to the bytes. Put the program in a script that calls it over and over again with a seed for the random number generator. When the VM crashes, look at the last seed that was used. Run the program again with that seed to confirm it is repeatable. This also happens to be a good way to detect if your VM is any good and fix it when it isn't. Unfortunately, many things are just so obscure on the x86 architecture that fixing all these bugs is just a chore that doesn't get you any big payout (as no real code uses these obscure things) so most VM developers don't bother.
uhhh.. TCP hijacking is almost just as easy now as it was 10 years ago. Back then you didn't have a whole lot of switches (they were much more expensive than hubs) so you could sniff packets for other hosts easier, but the act of hijacking TCP connections is still a major flaw in the protocol. We just work around it.
It would seem it is as easy to prove as "there are 300-foot tall humans".. which isn't a negative.
I am not 7 feet tall.
Seems like a negative, seems pretty easy to prove.
I'm obviously not making this clear. That bit at the end of the oath, "so help you God", and having your hand on the bible, that's what the oath is all about. The alternative, an affirmation, exists and is just as strong, but you're saying that you'd rather just go along with the oath, even though to you it is just a farce. You don't believe in God, so it is simply dishonest of you to swear an oath to Him.
Well, the GPLv3 specifically addresses this issue and makes it compatible to link such things. There's a nice little list of what is an ok restriction in there, but you can't add more things to it (until the next version). This is to stop people from saying "oh, and if you copy this, you have to pay me a royalty."
Stories of kids who live off the hit song their father wrote in the 1960s are stories of injustice. It's not sour grapes to think that there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that results in that kind of thing. No song is worth, to society, the loss of an entire life of contribution. I don't even condone that kind of assessment (!) but that's exactly the kind of language under which copyright is justified, so it is necessary to phrase objections in the same language.
The GPL says absolutely nothing like that. Linus did, but that's Linus' opinion.
What the GPL says is that that you must respect the 4 freedoms, and one of the requirements to do that is to make the source code available to the users of the software. To sum it up: it's about the users.
So you're suggesting that some users of the software should be unfree so that more people use the software.
Thanks, we've heard that viewpoint. We've gone through it a dozen times. We don't need you to write 500 words on it again.
Listen, and listen good. If even one user of the software does not have freedom, the license is broken. If you don't like that, don't use the license.
Sheesh.
So you're telling us that you would lie in a court of law, not only about your innocence or guilt, but also about the most sacramental part of the legal process.. and that you feel the whole this is so trivial you compare it to keeping your girlfriend from crying.
Wow, that's some upstanding behavior there.
In general, contracts don't extend to anyone but the contracted. So, if I ask you if I can borrow your rental car and you say yes, even though the contract between you and the rental car company says you are not permitted to lend me the car, it's your problem, not mine. The rental car is able to sue you for breach on contract. Of course, they wouldn't, because they're not manic control freaks like software companies, who seen any form of sharing of their product as "lost revenue".
Arfken? Like Mathematical Methods for Physicists, Arfken? I missed that one.
As your hand is on a bible, I'm thinking that swearing your oath to any other God than the one that is portrayed in that bible would be dishonest. :)
Yes, sounds reasonable. I don't really have any problem with people willingly entering into agreements not to distribute software. I do have a problem with being bound to an agreement that I didn't enter into willingly because someone who did willingly enter into that agreement broke the agreement and gave me a copy of the software. That's the bit that copyright enforces, and it's wrong.
Because some people are obsessed with gaining the upper hand. They just don't like the fact that people are free. The people I'm talking about are the record companies and the movie industries and the proprietary software companies of this world. They want to keep making money and the only way they can do that is by restricting people. The fact that you can't just write in a license "I want all users of this software to be free to run it for any purpose, modify it and redistribute it, if you're doing anything which prevents this, you can't use my software" and you have to enumerate all the different ways that people can violate the rights of the users of the software is why we need to have license updates. This changes the status quo and some people just can't handle that either.
Sounds about right.
The GPL was designed to ensure that all users of the software have the freedom to run, modify and redistribute it. Tivoization is seen by RMS and many others as a technical way to sidestep that. As such, it is right and proper for an updated version of the GPL to include some provisions to stop this.
Go read about the history of the AGPL. They asked RMS for permission.
If you swear to an oath to God and you don't believe in God then you are lying. If you think this is an ok thing to do, then you are amoral.
That's great. He is a troll, he admits it himself. It's off topic.
I agree with the anti-tivoization provisions because I understand Free Software. So long as you keep saying "well, customers can just choose not to buy that" then you're missing the entire point of the GPL. The restrictions in the GPL are there to ensure that all the users of the software have freedom. If you're happy with "vote with your feet" then the BSD is all you need. After all, people can just choose not to buy proprietary software as much as they can just choose not to buy locked down hardware. The restrictions on tivoization of hardware are exactly the same as the restrictions on making proprietary software. It's consistent and it makes sense.
If you think it is honest to lie then obviously it's impossible to have a rational conversation with you.
Pah-thetic attempt at a troll son. Go to the back of the class.
And if you don't believe in the sanctity of that act then you've got no right doing it. You should ask for the option of making an affirmation instead.
Linus' idea of freedom is that he should be free but he's not going to hold anyone responsible if they choose not to allow him to have his freedom. He's like "man, it's be sweet if there was source code for this" whereas RMS is like "you there who doesn't provide source code for this program, you are stopping me from being free, this is wrong."