Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #518112 > unrolled thread
| Started by | TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-02 11:18 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-10-03 21:49 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 181 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
worldwide internet threat map TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 11:18 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-02 07:07 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-02 08:45 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-02 09:18 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:22 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-02 10:28 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-02 15:19 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-02 14:59 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2018-10-03 14:32 -0500
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-02 14:51 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-02 23:29 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-02 17:58 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-02 18:08 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-02 19:09 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-02 19:17 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map boB <boB@K7IQ.com> - 2018-10-02 21:17 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map boB <boB@K7IQ.com> - 2018-10-02 23:25 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-03 01:00 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 03:21 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 05:37 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-03 10:26 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-03 05:42 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-03 10:40 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 01:07 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2018-10-03 14:44 -0500
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-03 17:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 10:50 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-04 11:38 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 12:11 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 01:03 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-03 17:14 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 10:47 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-04 08:40 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 08:48 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 22:32 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 15:07 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 00:44 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 08:47 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 17:14 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 12:04 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 20:22 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 13:17 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 14:28 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2018-10-06 00:17 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2018-10-05 16:53 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 12:08 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-03 00:52 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-02 18:30 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-03 10:23 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 05:44 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-03 07:04 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-03 08:29 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 10:59 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map boB <boB@K7IQ.com> - 2018-10-03 14:06 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Bert Hickman <bert-hickman@comcast.net> - 2018-10-03 17:20 -0500
Re: worldwide internet threat map boB <boB@K7IQ.com> - 2018-10-04 00:07 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-03 12:53 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-03 10:20 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-03 20:36 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-03 20:12 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-03 20:26 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 10:53 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 11:04 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-04 08:52 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 13:01 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 13:06 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 13:10 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 10:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 20:27 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 20:55 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-04 18:03 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 21:04 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 08:55 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-05 16:12 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 14:00 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-06 06:03 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 09:22 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-06 18:48 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Neon John <no@never.com> - 2018-10-06 21:17 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-07 08:22 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-07 08:54 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Neon John <no@never.com> - 2018-10-07 11:56 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 17:18 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 14:04 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 23:41 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-05 15:47 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 00:05 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-05 16:12 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2018-10-06 00:24 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-06 12:57 +1000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 08:19 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-06 22:21 +1000
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 09:31 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-06 09:39 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 10:45 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 08:13 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 09:02 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 09:40 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 11:26 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 11:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-06 18:48 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-09 11:26 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-09 07:07 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-09 07:19 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2018-10-09 17:11 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-09 09:53 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-09 20:27 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-09 17:32 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 18:03 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 18:25 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Chris <c@b.a> - 2018-10-11 11:29 +1100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-05 14:47 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 10:47 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-04 18:45 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 19:35 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 08:04 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 09:08 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 18:16 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-05 19:24 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2018-10-05 16:55 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Neon John <no@never.com> - 2018-10-05 14:50 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-09 10:42 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-09 07:10 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-09 17:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-04 18:30 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 21:00 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 21:03 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 10:10 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 22:38 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 15:08 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 00:47 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 09:19 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 18:48 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 14:08 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 09:15 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 18:55 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 14:12 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 14:37 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 00:01 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 23:18 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 09:52 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 10:53 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 20:29 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-09 08:33 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 11:18 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 11:20 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-05 19:35 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 05:24 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-06 06:53 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-04 18:12 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 19:04 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 09:22 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 09:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-05 19:45 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-05 19:44 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 17:00 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-03 20:42 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-03 18:31 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 09:23 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-04 09:06 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 17:49 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 10:14 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 10:55 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 01:10 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 13:13 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-03 13:47 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 09:26 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Neon John <no@never.com> - 2018-10-04 10:22 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map makolber@yahoo.com - 2018-10-04 08:16 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 08:44 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 17:15 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-04 09:14 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-04 09:31 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-04 07:51 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-04 08:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-04 09:57 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2018-10-03 14:29 -0500
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 13:11 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2018-10-03 13:33 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 16:02 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Cows are Nice <nice@cows.moo> - 2018-10-03 21:49 -0700
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | Neon John <no@never.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 14:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t0cfrd1ifj9lh562ae7lhd4pdifssgm4sh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518389 |
On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 18:03:07 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >I have some good ideas of how to make things better, but nobody here >wants to discuss them, or suggest any alternates. This "design" group >is mostly emotionally hostile to new ideas. Only a few people here are >capable of brainstorming, or of serious electronic design. > >So, call me an idiot, or suggest a better os and internet >architecture, and we'll see which group you are in. Instead of wearing your "holier than thou" attitude on your shoulder, why don't you toss out some ideas and we'll discuss them. Just please don't make the computer science version of perpetual motion. Don't make the mistake of thinking that throwing a billion processors at the Halting Problem will solve it. John John DeArmond http://www.neon-john.com http://www.tnduction.com Tellico Plains, Occupied TN See website for email address
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 10:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ppht6a$bfe$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518389 |
On 05/10/2018 02:03, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 20:27:52 +0100, Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 04/10/2018 18:27, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >>> This thread has turned pretty well south. Internet security is an >>> important issue, but talking about trashing pretty much our entire >>> network system and redesigning all PCs from the ground up is insane. >>> >>> JL like simple solutions whether or not they work. In his little >>> designs he can try things out, but in things like this he has no real >>> concept of the magnitude of what he is suggesting. >> >> It is a concrete example of the classic maxim that >> >> for every complex problem there is a simple *WRONG* answer. > > Oh, I have no illusions that anyone will fix the internet security > mess in my lifetime. With a zillion IoT devices and international > espionage, things will only get worse. IBM and Intel and Microsoft > messed things up too badly to fix any time soon. I don't think the Intel CPU is all that bad iff you run it in one of the segmented protected modes where things can be very tightly controlled. The problem is that all modern stuff is predicated on a flat memory model where anything can modify anything and code and data are mingled. The non-execute bit helps slightly but any good hacker can get round it. The virtual machine capabilities of todays chips aren't bad either. > > I have some good ideas of how to make things better, but nobody here > wants to discuss them, or suggest any alternates. This "design" group > is mostly emotionally hostile to new ideas. Only a few people here are > capable of brainstorming, or of serious electronic design. You announce that magic packet inspection by the same invisible technology leprechauns that will police the Northern Irish border post Brexit will solve all our problems. But they won't. They are a figment of your imagination. Just keeping a list of all the patterns of bad code is a monumental task and the aggressors would simply encrypt or pad with NOOPs here and there to defeat simple signature analysis. > So, call me an idiot, or suggest a better os and internet > architecture, and we'll see which group you are in. OS/2 and Unix seem to do pretty well. It is MickeySoft Windows that is the extremely vulnerable one. Apple's OS will run perfectly well on the right PC hardware - certain brands of Medion make fine Hackintoshes. I am no great fan of the Intel chips but they are nothing like as bad as you want to paint them. Most of the bugs are in Microsofts software. The self same hardware behaves robustly when running Apples dialect of Unix. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 07:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sjdprdta0m6hh00nmjiqrgre4fnsi95vcc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518806 |
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:42:35 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 05/10/2018 02:03, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 20:27:52 +0100, Martin Brown >> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 04/10/2018 18:27, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >>>> This thread has turned pretty well south. Internet security is an >>>> important issue, but talking about trashing pretty much our entire >>>> network system and redesigning all PCs from the ground up is insane. >>>> >>>> JL like simple solutions whether or not they work. In his little >>>> designs he can try things out, but in things like this he has no real >>>> concept of the magnitude of what he is suggesting. >>> >>> It is a concrete example of the classic maxim that >>> >>> for every complex problem there is a simple *WRONG* answer. >> >> Oh, I have no illusions that anyone will fix the internet security >> mess in my lifetime. With a zillion IoT devices and international >> espionage, things will only get worse. IBM and Intel and Microsoft >> messed things up too badly to fix any time soon. > >I don't think the Intel CPU is all that bad iff you run it in one of the >segmented protected modes where things can be very tightly controlled. >The problem is that all modern stuff is predicated on a flat memory >model where anything can modify anything and code and data are mingled. >The non-execute bit helps slightly but any good hacker can get round it. > >The virtual machine capabilities of todays chips aren't bad either. >> >> I have some good ideas of how to make things better, but nobody here >> wants to discuss them, or suggest any alternates. This "design" group >> is mostly emotionally hostile to new ideas. Only a few people here are >> capable of brainstorming, or of serious electronic design. > >You announce that magic packet inspection by the same invisible >technology leprechauns that will police the Northern Irish border post >Brexit will solve all our problems. But they won't. They are a figment >of your imagination. Just keeping a list of all the patterns of bad code >is a monumental task and the aggressors would simply encrypt or pad with >NOOPs here and there to defeat simple signature analysis. You are basically saying that you have the ability to mock ideas, but (no coincidence) you have no ideas of your own. Fine by me. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 17:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b65c0da-3b47-49a4-93df-30f1e399c937@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518822 |
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 1:11:01 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:42:35 +0100, Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 05/10/2018 02:03, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 20:27:52 +0100, Martin Brown > >> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> On 04/10/2018 18:27, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: <snip> > >You announce that magic packet inspection by the same invisible > >technology leprechauns that will police the Northern Irish border post > >Brexit will solve all our problems. But they won't. They are a figment > >of your imagination. Just keeping a list of all the patterns of bad code > >is a monumental task and the aggressors would simply encrypt or pad with > >NOOPs here and there to defeat simple signature analysis. > > You are basically saying that you have the ability to mock ideas, but > (no coincidence) you have no ideas of your own. Working out that a proposal represents uninformed hand-waving is a lot easier than coming up with scheme that might work. It's still well worth doing. Ill-conceived schemes that can't ever work have wasted a great deal of time and money - the war on drugs does come to mind - and mocking them before they get traction is a decidedly constructive activity. > Fine by me. Since what you want is the admiration you can gather by posting click-bait, this comes as no surprise. If you had any ambition to do something actually admirable, you wouldn't be wasting your time and ours bleating about matters you don't understand. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 18:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b09fc977-8a44-4729-a8d5-9db8a1ae3610@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518362 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 5:27:58 AM UTC+10, Martin Brown wrote: > On 04/10/2018 18:27, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: > > This thread has turned pretty well south. Internet security is an > > important issue, but talking about trashing pretty much our entire > > network system and redesigning all PCs from the ground up is insane. > > > > JL like simple solutions whether or not they work. In his little > > designs he can try things out, but in things like this he has no real > > concept of the magnitude of what he is suggesting. > > It is a concrete example of the classic maxim that > > for every complex problem there is a simple *WRONG* answer. Not the original formulation <http://socialdimensions.com.au/that-mencken-quote/> "Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem neat, plausible and wrong.” John Larkin seems to own a complete set, though he does also seem to have access to explanations that aren't all that plausible. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <user@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 21:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <HIytD.84875$ql2.28037@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #518352 |
On 10/04/2018 01:27 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: > This thread has turned pretty well south. Internet security is an important issue, but talking about trashing pretty much our entire network system and redesigning all PCs from the ground up is insane. > > JL like simple solutions whether or not they work. In his little designs he can try things out, but in things like this he has no real concept of the magnitude of what he is suggesting. > > Rick C. > "we must destroy it, in order to save it" is an example of "better is the enemy of good." If you're okay with less than perfect destroying what you already have is usually unnecessary anyway, you can often get an 80% performance boost by changing 20% of "it."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <user@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 21:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tLytD.84876$ql2.38931@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #518388 |
On 10/04/2018 09:00 PM, bitrex wrote: > On 10/04/2018 01:27 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >> This thread has turned pretty well south. Internet security is an >> important issue, but talking about trashing pretty much our entire >> network system and redesigning all PCs from the ground up is insane. >> >> JL like simple solutions whether or not they work. In his little >> designs he can try things out, but in things like this he has no real >> concept of the magnitude of what he is suggesting. >> >> Rick C. >> > > "we must destroy it, in order to save it" is an example of "better is > the enemy of good." If you're okay with less than perfect destroying > what you already have is usually unnecessary anyway, you can often get > an 80% performance boost by changing 20% of "it." Also the whole "throw it away and start again" is not what I'd describe as a very "conservative" philosophy of engineering, either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 10:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <075fe2f6-5913-4197-9a47-b1fcd39afd97@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518332 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:52:31 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:04:47 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > > >On 10/03/2018 11:12 PM, John Larkin wrote: > > > >> We're living in the dark ages of computing. > > > >And yet already bumping up against physical/quantum mechanical limits of > >CMOS feature size! > > > >>> C++ has improved in its modern incarnations and there are other newer > >>> compiled languages that claim to offer the speed of C plus no undefined > >>> behavior/automatic enforcement of secure coding practices. it'll take > >>> time for this stuff to filter down, though. A lot of shit code has > >>> already been released. > >>> > >>> But there's no reasonable way to verify any modern piece of compute > >>> hardware or non-trivial software is utterly 100% un-exploitable and > >>> semantically correct. > >> > >> We'd need to have a modern architecture to try. > > > >Well the graveyard of tech biz history is littered with companies who > >developed the One True Architecture or the One True OS the usual result > >being nobody ever used it for anything. :( > > > c is now 46 years old. Windows was introduced 35 years ago. x86 is 39 > years old and was obsolete the day it was introduced. > > Practically nobody here seems to be willing to consider that things > will ever change... and not just about computing. People with that > mindset can hardly be expected to design anything interesting, and > don't. And those who only complain and never attempt action also can hardly be expected to design anything interesting in that area... and don't. Rick C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 22:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rLvtD.409103$0L2.393543@fx04.am4> |
| In reply to | #518332 |
On 04/10/18 16:52, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:04:47 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > >> On 10/03/2018 11:12 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> >>> We're living in the dark ages of computing. >> >> And yet already bumping up against physical/quantum mechanical limits of >> CMOS feature size! >> >>>> C++ has improved in its modern incarnations and there are other newer >>>> compiled languages that claim to offer the speed of C plus no undefined >>>> behavior/automatic enforcement of secure coding practices. it'll take >>>> time for this stuff to filter down, though. A lot of shit code has >>>> already been released. >>>> >>>> But there's no reasonable way to verify any modern piece of compute >>>> hardware or non-trivial software is utterly 100% un-exploitable and >>>> semantically correct. >>> >>> We'd need to have a modern architecture to try. >> >> Well the graveyard of tech biz history is littered with companies who >> developed the One True Architecture or the One True OS the usual result >> being nobody ever used it for anything. :( > > > c is now 46 years old. Windows was introduced 35 years ago. x86 is 39 > years old and was obsolete the day it was introduced. > > Practically nobody here seems to be willing to consider that things > will ever change... and not just about computing. People with that > mindset can hardly be expected to design anything interesting, and > don't. Oh, now those are /completely/ different claims from your others about it being easy to solve the halting problem. I most certainly agree with all of those assertions. Indeed, when I returned to dabbling in embedded systems after 20 years working "on the dark side", I was simultaneously delighted and horrified at how little had changed since the mid 80s. But there are rays of hope. There are a few better languages (especially ones which are less of a mismatch with multicore processors), and better multicore processors with decent inter-processor comms facilities. But too many people have the "C can do everything and is the best that can be done" attitude.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 15:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20aba6be-d26e-4516-b7e3-24e433ab7338@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518366 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 5:38:35 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote: > On 04/10/18 16:52, John Larkin wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:04:47 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > > > >> On 10/03/2018 11:12 PM, John Larkin wrote: > >> > >>> We're living in the dark ages of computing. > >> > >> And yet already bumping up against physical/quantum mechanical limits of > >> CMOS feature size! > >> > >>>> C++ has improved in its modern incarnations and there are other newer > >>>> compiled languages that claim to offer the speed of C plus no undefined > >>>> behavior/automatic enforcement of secure coding practices. it'll take > >>>> time for this stuff to filter down, though. A lot of shit code has > >>>> already been released. > >>>> > >>>> But there's no reasonable way to verify any modern piece of compute > >>>> hardware or non-trivial software is utterly 100% un-exploitable and > >>>> semantically correct. > >>> > >>> We'd need to have a modern architecture to try. > >> > >> Well the graveyard of tech biz history is littered with companies who > >> developed the One True Architecture or the One True OS the usual result > >> being nobody ever used it for anything. :( > > > > > > c is now 46 years old. Windows was introduced 35 years ago. x86 is 39 > > years old and was obsolete the day it was introduced. > > > > Practically nobody here seems to be willing to consider that things > > will ever change... and not just about computing. People with that > > mindset can hardly be expected to design anything interesting, and > > don't. > > Oh, now those are /completely/ different claims from your > others about it being easy to solve the halting problem. > > I most certainly agree with all of those assertions. Indeed, > when I returned to dabbling in embedded systems after 20 > years working "on the dark side", I was simultaneously > delighted and horrified at how little had changed since > the mid 80s. > > But there are rays of hope. There are a few better > languages (especially ones which are less of a > mismatch with multicore processors), and better > multicore processors with decent inter-processor comms > facilities. > > But too many people have the "C can do everything and > is the best that can be done" attitude. Not people who have learned Forth. Rick C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 00:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dExtD.299331$2v.234436@fx14.am4> |
| In reply to | #518371 |
On 04/10/18 23:08, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 5:38:35 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote: >> On 04/10/18 16:52, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:04:47 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/03/2018 11:12 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>>> We're living in the dark ages of computing. >>>> >>>> And yet already bumping up against physical/quantum mechanical limits of >>>> CMOS feature size! >>>> >>>>>> C++ has improved in its modern incarnations and there are other newer >>>>>> compiled languages that claim to offer the speed of C plus no undefined >>>>>> behavior/automatic enforcement of secure coding practices. it'll take >>>>>> time for this stuff to filter down, though. A lot of shit code has >>>>>> already been released. >>>>>> >>>>>> But there's no reasonable way to verify any modern piece of compute >>>>>> hardware or non-trivial software is utterly 100% un-exploitable and >>>>>> semantically correct. >>>>> >>>>> We'd need to have a modern architecture to try. >>>> >>>> Well the graveyard of tech biz history is littered with companies who >>>> developed the One True Architecture or the One True OS the usual result >>>> being nobody ever used it for anything. :( >>> >>> >>> c is now 46 years old. Windows was introduced 35 years ago. x86 is 39 >>> years old and was obsolete the day it was introduced. >>> >>> Practically nobody here seems to be willing to consider that things >>> will ever change... and not just about computing. People with that >>> mindset can hardly be expected to design anything interesting, and >>> don't. >> >> Oh, now those are /completely/ different claims from your >> others about it being easy to solve the halting problem. >> >> I most certainly agree with all of those assertions. Indeed, >> when I returned to dabbling in embedded systems after 20 >> years working "on the dark side", I was simultaneously >> delighted and horrified at how little had changed since >> the mid 80s. >> >> But there are rays of hope. There are a few better >> languages (especially ones which are less of a >> mismatch with multicore processors), and better >> multicore processors with decent inter-processor comms >> facilities. >> >> But too many people have the "C can do everything and >> is the best that can be done" attitude. > > Not people who have learned Forth. Interesting observation of Java and C/C++. The people that originated and defined Java repeatedly referred to lessons learned in many other languages. (e.g. see Gosling's 1996 white paper). The people that define C/C++ repeatedly refer to papers about C/C++, as if it was the only thing that existed. Such myopia is revealing and worrying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 09:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8k3frdpdhca8ct33d50gkmt4on1mhc3ghu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518381 |
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:47:21 +0100, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >On 04/10/18 23:08, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 5:38:35 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote: >>> On 04/10/18 16:52, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:04:47 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/03/2018 11:12 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We're living in the dark ages of computing. >>>>> >>>>> And yet already bumping up against physical/quantum mechanical limits of >>>>> CMOS feature size! >>>>> >>>>>>> C++ has improved in its modern incarnations and there are other newer >>>>>>> compiled languages that claim to offer the speed of C plus no undefined >>>>>>> behavior/automatic enforcement of secure coding practices. it'll take >>>>>>> time for this stuff to filter down, though. A lot of shit code has >>>>>>> already been released. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But there's no reasonable way to verify any modern piece of compute >>>>>>> hardware or non-trivial software is utterly 100% un-exploitable and >>>>>>> semantically correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> We'd need to have a modern architecture to try. >>>>> >>>>> Well the graveyard of tech biz history is littered with companies who >>>>> developed the One True Architecture or the One True OS the usual result >>>>> being nobody ever used it for anything. :( >>>> >>>> >>>> c is now 46 years old. Windows was introduced 35 years ago. x86 is 39 >>>> years old and was obsolete the day it was introduced. >>>> >>>> Practically nobody here seems to be willing to consider that things >>>> will ever change... and not just about computing. People with that >>>> mindset can hardly be expected to design anything interesting, and >>>> don't. >>> >>> Oh, now those are /completely/ different claims from your >>> others about it being easy to solve the halting problem. >>> >>> I most certainly agree with all of those assertions. Indeed, >>> when I returned to dabbling in embedded systems after 20 >>> years working "on the dark side", I was simultaneously >>> delighted and horrified at how little had changed since >>> the mid 80s. >>> >>> But there are rays of hope. There are a few better >>> languages (especially ones which are less of a >>> mismatch with multicore processors), and better >>> multicore processors with decent inter-processor comms >>> facilities. >>> >>> But too many people have the "C can do everything and >>> is the best that can be done" attitude. >> >> Not people who have learned Forth. > >Interesting observation of Java and C/C++. > >The people that originated and defined Java repeatedly >referred to lessons learned in many other languages. >(e.g. see Gosling's 1996 white paper). > >The people that define C/C++ repeatedly refer to papers >about C/C++, as if it was the only thing that existed. > >Such myopia is revealing and worrying. I never programmed Pascal, but pseudocode-based and interpreted languages (like Python) are a lot safer than running machine code on existing architectures. I kind of like Python, because it's a lot like Basic. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 18:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rtNtD.13$kh6.11@fx32.am4> |
| In reply to | #518436 |
On 05/10/18 17:19, John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:47:21 +0100, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 04/10/18 23:08, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 5:38:35 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>> On 04/10/18 16:52, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:04:47 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/03/2018 11:12 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> We're living in the dark ages of computing. >>>>>> >>>>>> And yet already bumping up against physical/quantum mechanical limits of >>>>>> CMOS feature size! >>>>>> >>>>>>>> C++ has improved in its modern incarnations and there are other newer >>>>>>>> compiled languages that claim to offer the speed of C plus no undefined >>>>>>>> behavior/automatic enforcement of secure coding practices. it'll take >>>>>>>> time for this stuff to filter down, though. A lot of shit code has >>>>>>>> already been released. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But there's no reasonable way to verify any modern piece of compute >>>>>>>> hardware or non-trivial software is utterly 100% un-exploitable and >>>>>>>> semantically correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We'd need to have a modern architecture to try. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well the graveyard of tech biz history is littered with companies who >>>>>> developed the One True Architecture or the One True OS the usual result >>>>>> being nobody ever used it for anything. :( >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> c is now 46 years old. Windows was introduced 35 years ago. x86 is 39 >>>>> years old and was obsolete the day it was introduced. >>>>> >>>>> Practically nobody here seems to be willing to consider that things >>>>> will ever change... and not just about computing. People with that >>>>> mindset can hardly be expected to design anything interesting, and >>>>> don't. >>>> >>>> Oh, now those are /completely/ different claims from your >>>> others about it being easy to solve the halting problem. >>>> >>>> I most certainly agree with all of those assertions. Indeed, >>>> when I returned to dabbling in embedded systems after 20 >>>> years working "on the dark side", I was simultaneously >>>> delighted and horrified at how little had changed since >>>> the mid 80s. >>>> >>>> But there are rays of hope. There are a few better >>>> languages (especially ones which are less of a >>>> mismatch with multicore processors), and better >>>> multicore processors with decent inter-processor comms >>>> facilities. >>>> >>>> But too many people have the "C can do everything and >>>> is the best that can be done" attitude. >>> >>> Not people who have learned Forth. >> >> Interesting observation of Java and C/C++. >> >> The people that originated and defined Java repeatedly >> referred to lessons learned in many other languages. >> (e.g. see Gosling's 1996 white paper). >> >> The people that define C/C++ repeatedly refer to papers >> about C/C++, as if it was the only thing that existed. >> >> Such myopia is revealing and worrying. > > I never programmed Pascal, but pseudocode-based and interpreted > languages (like Python) are a lot safer than running machine code on > existing architectures. > > I kind of like Python, because it's a lot like Basic. I toyed with Pascal, and regarded it as a variant of Algol60. I programmed in C from 82(ish) onwards. I used Smalltalk professionally starting in 1986, was delighted with it capabilities in a way I never was with LISP nor Prolog. Clearly OOP/OOD was The Way Forward. Objective-C I quite liked, C++ I loathed. Modula, Delphi I regarded as me-too copies, and obviously C# is Java without the security, and with a different runtime strategy. Python is OK, but a bit of a mish-mash. I'm wary that accidentally changing a few whitespace characters will change my program (remember the difference between tab and spaces in makefiles?) For /hard/ realtime multicore embedded systems, my current preference is xC, since that builds on 40 years of solid theory and experience in a way no other environment does (or even /can/ do). By and large, I've made few mistakes in selecting which languages to study and ignore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3kkfrd9do67h14qfpt4j13cvjkvo9u17uh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518443 |
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 18:48:07 +0100, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >On 05/10/18 17:19, John Larkin wrote: >> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:47:21 +0100, Tom Gardner >> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 04/10/18 23:08, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 5:38:35 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>> On 04/10/18 16:52, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:04:47 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/03/2018 11:12 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We're living in the dark ages of computing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And yet already bumping up against physical/quantum mechanical limits of >>>>>>> CMOS feature size! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> C++ has improved in its modern incarnations and there are other newer >>>>>>>>> compiled languages that claim to offer the speed of C plus no undefined >>>>>>>>> behavior/automatic enforcement of secure coding practices. it'll take >>>>>>>>> time for this stuff to filter down, though. A lot of shit code has >>>>>>>>> already been released. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But there's no reasonable way to verify any modern piece of compute >>>>>>>>> hardware or non-trivial software is utterly 100% un-exploitable and >>>>>>>>> semantically correct. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We'd need to have a modern architecture to try. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well the graveyard of tech biz history is littered with companies who >>>>>>> developed the One True Architecture or the One True OS the usual result >>>>>>> being nobody ever used it for anything. :( >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> c is now 46 years old. Windows was introduced 35 years ago. x86 is 39 >>>>>> years old and was obsolete the day it was introduced. >>>>>> >>>>>> Practically nobody here seems to be willing to consider that things >>>>>> will ever change... and not just about computing. People with that >>>>>> mindset can hardly be expected to design anything interesting, and >>>>>> don't. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, now those are /completely/ different claims from your >>>>> others about it being easy to solve the halting problem. >>>>> >>>>> I most certainly agree with all of those assertions. Indeed, >>>>> when I returned to dabbling in embedded systems after 20 >>>>> years working "on the dark side", I was simultaneously >>>>> delighted and horrified at how little had changed since >>>>> the mid 80s. >>>>> >>>>> But there are rays of hope. There are a few better >>>>> languages (especially ones which are less of a >>>>> mismatch with multicore processors), and better >>>>> multicore processors with decent inter-processor comms >>>>> facilities. >>>>> >>>>> But too many people have the "C can do everything and >>>>> is the best that can be done" attitude. >>>> >>>> Not people who have learned Forth. >>> >>> Interesting observation of Java and C/C++. >>> >>> The people that originated and defined Java repeatedly >>> referred to lessons learned in many other languages. >>> (e.g. see Gosling's 1996 white paper). >>> >>> The people that define C/C++ repeatedly refer to papers >>> about C/C++, as if it was the only thing that existed. >>> >>> Such myopia is revealing and worrying. >> >> I never programmed Pascal, but pseudocode-based and interpreted >> languages (like Python) are a lot safer than running machine code on >> existing architectures. >> >> I kind of like Python, because it's a lot like Basic. > >I toyed with Pascal, and regarded it as a variant of Algol60. > >I programmed in C from 82(ish) onwards. > >I used Smalltalk professionally starting in 1986, was delighted >with it capabilities in a way I never was with LISP nor Prolog. >Clearly OOP/OOD was The Way Forward. > >Objective-C I quite liked, C++ I loathed. > >Modula, Delphi I regarded as me-too copies, and obviously C# >is Java without the security, and with a different runtime >strategy. > >Python is OK, but a bit of a mish-mash. I'm wary that >accidentally changing a few whitespace characters will >change my program (remember the difference between tab >and spaces in makefiles?) Really, typing NEXT isn't such a burden. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 09:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v33frdtqrg5rl1aohv1jbapm4epmqufeil@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518366 |
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 22:38:31 +0100, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >On 04/10/18 16:52, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:04:47 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >> >>> On 10/03/2018 11:12 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> We're living in the dark ages of computing. >>> >>> And yet already bumping up against physical/quantum mechanical limits of >>> CMOS feature size! >>> >>>>> C++ has improved in its modern incarnations and there are other newer >>>>> compiled languages that claim to offer the speed of C plus no undefined >>>>> behavior/automatic enforcement of secure coding practices. it'll take >>>>> time for this stuff to filter down, though. A lot of shit code has >>>>> already been released. >>>>> >>>>> But there's no reasonable way to verify any modern piece of compute >>>>> hardware or non-trivial software is utterly 100% un-exploitable and >>>>> semantically correct. >>>> >>>> We'd need to have a modern architecture to try. >>> >>> Well the graveyard of tech biz history is littered with companies who >>> developed the One True Architecture or the One True OS the usual result >>> being nobody ever used it for anything. :( >> >> >> c is now 46 years old. Windows was introduced 35 years ago. x86 is 39 >> years old and was obsolete the day it was introduced. >> >> Practically nobody here seems to be willing to consider that things >> will ever change... and not just about computing. People with that >> mindset can hardly be expected to design anything interesting, and >> don't. > >Oh, now those are /completely/ different claims from your >others about it being easy to solve the halting problem. I never mentioned the halting problem. > >I most certainly agree with all of those assertions. Indeed, >when I returned to dabbling in embedded systems after 20 >years working "on the dark side", I was simultaneously >delighted and horrified at how little had changed since >the mid 80s. > >But there are rays of hope. There are a few better >languages (especially ones which are less of a >mismatch with multicore processors), and better >multicore processors with decent inter-processor comms >facilities. Multicore, with a modern architecture and proper hardware protections, is the obvious path towards secure computing. > >But too many people have the "C can do everything and >is the best that can be done" attitude. c dumps too much danger into a shared memory space, and x86 doesn't provide enough tools to make it safe. What tools it provides aren't much used. Buffer overrun exploits should be flat impossible. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 18:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nANtD.441$%N3.98@fx11.am4> |
| In reply to | #518434 |
On 05/10/18 17:15, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 22:38:31 +0100, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 04/10/18 16:52, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:04:47 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/03/2018 11:12 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>>> We're living in the dark ages of computing. >>>> >>>> And yet already bumping up against physical/quantum mechanical limits of >>>> CMOS feature size! >>>> >>>>>> C++ has improved in its modern incarnations and there are other newer >>>>>> compiled languages that claim to offer the speed of C plus no undefined >>>>>> behavior/automatic enforcement of secure coding practices. it'll take >>>>>> time for this stuff to filter down, though. A lot of shit code has >>>>>> already been released. >>>>>> >>>>>> But there's no reasonable way to verify any modern piece of compute >>>>>> hardware or non-trivial software is utterly 100% un-exploitable and >>>>>> semantically correct. >>>>> >>>>> We'd need to have a modern architecture to try. >>>> >>>> Well the graveyard of tech biz history is littered with companies who >>>> developed the One True Architecture or the One True OS the usual result >>>> being nobody ever used it for anything. :( >>> >>> >>> c is now 46 years old. Windows was introduced 35 years ago. x86 is 39 >>> years old and was obsolete the day it was introduced. >>> >>> Practically nobody here seems to be willing to consider that things >>> will ever change... and not just about computing. People with that >>> mindset can hardly be expected to design anything interesting, and >>> don't. >> >> Oh, now those are /completely/ different claims from your >> others about it being easy to solve the halting problem. > > I never mentioned the halting problem. No, but some of your ideas, as expressed here, are equivalent to solving the halting problem. >> I most certainly agree with all of those assertions. Indeed, >> when I returned to dabbling in embedded systems after 20 >> years working "on the dark side", I was simultaneously >> delighted and horrified at how little had changed since >> the mid 80s. >> >> But there are rays of hope. There are a few better >> languages (especially ones which are less of a >> mismatch with multicore processors), and better >> multicore processors with decent inter-processor comms >> facilities. > > Multicore, with a modern architecture and proper hardware protections, > is the obvious path towards secure computing. Defining "proper" and how they avoid the worst consequences is your next task :) Capability architectures have been around for many decades, but never commercially. Perhaps their time will come - but not in cost-sensitive embedded systems, unfortunately. >> But too many people have the "C can do everything and >> is the best that can be done" attitude. > > c dumps too much danger into a shared memory space, and x86 doesn't > provide enough tools to make it safe. What tools it provides aren't > much used. > > Buffer overrun exploits should be flat impossible. C has become part of the problem, whereas initially it was part of the solution. The committee(s) screwed up by trying to make it simultaneously a high level application language and also a low level embedded language. And if C++ is the answer, you've asked the wrong question!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 14:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ankfrddfsli9adnpqld4hio65hpronqhih@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518445 |
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 18:55:31 +0100, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >On 05/10/18 17:15, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 22:38:31 +0100, Tom Gardner >> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 04/10/18 16:52, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:04:47 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/03/2018 11:12 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We're living in the dark ages of computing. >>>>> >>>>> And yet already bumping up against physical/quantum mechanical limits of >>>>> CMOS feature size! >>>>> >>>>>>> C++ has improved in its modern incarnations and there are other newer >>>>>>> compiled languages that claim to offer the speed of C plus no undefined >>>>>>> behavior/automatic enforcement of secure coding practices. it'll take >>>>>>> time for this stuff to filter down, though. A lot of shit code has >>>>>>> already been released. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But there's no reasonable way to verify any modern piece of compute >>>>>>> hardware or non-trivial software is utterly 100% un-exploitable and >>>>>>> semantically correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> We'd need to have a modern architecture to try. >>>>> >>>>> Well the graveyard of tech biz history is littered with companies who >>>>> developed the One True Architecture or the One True OS the usual result >>>>> being nobody ever used it for anything. :( >>>> >>>> >>>> c is now 46 years old. Windows was introduced 35 years ago. x86 is 39 >>>> years old and was obsolete the day it was introduced. >>>> >>>> Practically nobody here seems to be willing to consider that things >>>> will ever change... and not just about computing. People with that >>>> mindset can hardly be expected to design anything interesting, and >>>> don't. >>> >>> Oh, now those are /completely/ different claims from your >>> others about it being easy to solve the halting problem. >> >> I never mentioned the halting problem. > >No, but some of your ideas, as expressed here, are >equivalent to solving the halting problem. Asking ISPs to not deliver infected web pages is equivalent to the halting problem? Or enforcing i/d space separation? Trapping on a stack overflow? That was standard in some systems decades ago. > > > >>> I most certainly agree with all of those assertions. Indeed, >>> when I returned to dabbling in embedded systems after 20 >>> years working "on the dark side", I was simultaneously >>> delighted and horrified at how little had changed since >>> the mid 80s. >>> >>> But there are rays of hope. There are a few better >>> languages (especially ones which are less of a >>> mismatch with multicore processors), and better >>> multicore processors with decent inter-processor comms >>> facilities. >> >> Multicore, with a modern architecture and proper hardware protections, >> is the obvious path towards secure computing. > >Defining "proper" and how they avoid the worst consequences >is your next task :) Start by never executing data. Your own data, or someone else's. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 14:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2db3cd8-edbf-4d07-923b-36163cd54c9c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518462 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 5:12:44 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 18:55:31 +0100, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 05/10/18 17:15, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 22:38:31 +0100, Tom Gardner > >> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> On 04/10/18 16:52, John Larkin wrote: > >>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:04:47 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 10/03/2018 11:12 PM, John Larkin wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> We're living in the dark ages of computing. > >>>>> > >>>>> And yet already bumping up against physical/quantum mechanical limits of > >>>>> CMOS feature size! > >>>>> > >>>>>>> C++ has improved in its modern incarnations and there are other newer > >>>>>>> compiled languages that claim to offer the speed of C plus no undefined > >>>>>>> behavior/automatic enforcement of secure coding practices. it'll take > >>>>>>> time for this stuff to filter down, though. A lot of shit code has > >>>>>>> already been released. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But there's no reasonable way to verify any modern piece of compute > >>>>>>> hardware or non-trivial software is utterly 100% un-exploitable and > >>>>>>> semantically correct. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We'd need to have a modern architecture to try. > >>>>> > >>>>> Well the graveyard of tech biz history is littered with companies who > >>>>> developed the One True Architecture or the One True OS the usual result > >>>>> being nobody ever used it for anything. :( > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> c is now 46 years old. Windows was introduced 35 years ago. x86 is 39 > >>>> years old and was obsolete the day it was introduced. > >>>> > >>>> Practically nobody here seems to be willing to consider that things > >>>> will ever change... and not just about computing. People with that > >>>> mindset can hardly be expected to design anything interesting, and > >>>> don't. > >>> > >>> Oh, now those are /completely/ different claims from your > >>> others about it being easy to solve the halting problem. > >> > >> I never mentioned the halting problem. > > > >No, but some of your ideas, as expressed here, are > >equivalent to solving the halting problem. > > > Asking ISPs to not deliver infected web pages is equivalent to the > halting problem? You haven't explained how this would be done! Are they running PCs in parallel with your PC so that every page is imported to them before it is provided to you? It's not like stopping drugs at the border. You can't spot an infected web page as the packets stream by unless you buffer it all up. Encryption prevents you from doing anything with the web pages. Why are you so dense that you can't understand this? How many people have explained it to you and you still don't get it? > Or enforcing i/d space separation? Trapping on a stack overflow? That > was standard in some systems decades ago. They do that in current systems I thought. That's one of the reasons why Win32Forth is flagged as a virus on many AVS packages. It does things to be efficient. AVS sees that and calls "foul"! > >>> I most certainly agree with all of those assertions. Indeed, > >>> when I returned to dabbling in embedded systems after 20 > >>> years working "on the dark side", I was simultaneously > >>> delighted and horrified at how little had changed since > >>> the mid 80s. > >>> > >>> But there are rays of hope. There are a few better > >>> languages (especially ones which are less of a > >>> mismatch with multicore processors), and better > >>> multicore processors with decent inter-processor comms > >>> facilities. > >> > >> Multicore, with a modern architecture and proper hardware protections, > >> is the obvious path towards secure computing. > > > >Defining "proper" and how they avoid the worst consequences > >is your next task :) > > Start by never executing data. Your own data, or someone else's. I believe that is the rule. The problem is when the people writing software make mistakes. The stuff you design is not as complex to test so you can build things that don't have so many bugs, but then they do relatively simple tasks. Rick C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 00:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Z2StD.9$I67.7@fx15.am4> |
| In reply to | #518462 |
On 05/10/18 22:12, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 18:55:31 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 05/10/18 17:15, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 22:38:31 +0100, Tom Gardner
>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/10/18 16:52, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:04:47 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/03/2018 11:12 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We're living in the dark ages of computing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet already bumping up against physical/quantum mechanical limits of
>>>>>> CMOS feature size!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> C++ has improved in its modern incarnations and there are other newer
>>>>>>>> compiled languages that claim to offer the speed of C plus no undefined
>>>>>>>> behavior/automatic enforcement of secure coding practices. it'll take
>>>>>>>> time for this stuff to filter down, though. A lot of shit code has
>>>>>>>> already been released.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But there's no reasonable way to verify any modern piece of compute
>>>>>>>> hardware or non-trivial software is utterly 100% un-exploitable and
>>>>>>>> semantically correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We'd need to have a modern architecture to try.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well the graveyard of tech biz history is littered with companies who
>>>>>> developed the One True Architecture or the One True OS the usual result
>>>>>> being nobody ever used it for anything. :(
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> c is now 46 years old. Windows was introduced 35 years ago. x86 is 39
>>>>> years old and was obsolete the day it was introduced.
>>>>>
>>>>> Practically nobody here seems to be willing to consider that things
>>>>> will ever change... and not just about computing. People with that
>>>>> mindset can hardly be expected to design anything interesting, and
>>>>> don't.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, now those are /completely/ different claims from your
>>>> others about it being easy to solve the halting problem.
>>>
>>> I never mentioned the halting problem.
>>
>> No, but some of your ideas, as expressed here, are
>> equivalent to solving the halting problem.
>
>
> Asking ISPs to not deliver infected web pages is equivalent to the
> halting problem?
Yes.
Install a Javascript blocker in a browser, see how many different
companies are involved when a page is loaded. Much of the crap
is in the form of JavaScript.
> Or enforcing i/d space separation? Trapping on a stack overflow? That
> was standard in some systems decades ago.
Sensible, but if completely applied, it would completely fuck
a lot of software. Think of JITting, HotSpot in the Java runtime
and similar. Or the REPL loop in the Python runtime!
In other words, all you have done is move a boundary
- from inside the processor (e.g. where the ISA defined
instructions are interpreted and executed as many
internal proprietary micro-ops)
- to inside the software runtime (where proprietary
bytecodes are interpreted and executed as many ISA
defined instructions).
So nothing would really change.
>>>> I most certainly agree with all of those assertions. Indeed,
>>>> when I returned to dabbling in embedded systems after 20
>>>> years working "on the dark side", I was simultaneously
>>>> delighted and horrified at how little had changed since
>>>> the mid 80s.
>>>>
>>>> But there are rays of hope. There are a few better
>>>> languages (especially ones which are less of a
>>>> mismatch with multicore processors), and better
>>>> multicore processors with decent inter-processor comms
>>>> facilities.
>>>
>>> Multicore, with a modern architecture and proper hardware protections,
>>> is the obvious path towards secure computing.
>>
>> Defining "proper" and how they avoid the worst consequences
>> is your next task :)
>
> Start by never executing data. Your own data, or someone else's.
Trust me, you don't want that. Your favourite compiler/linker
emits data, which is then executed.
To get around that some God has to say "trust that data
and execute it". You can gameplay what malefactors will
do next!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 23:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <65716a3e-e2f4-47cd-9469-4f03167b6b84@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518462 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 2:12:44 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 18:55:31 +0100, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >Defining "proper" and how they avoid the worst consequences > >is your next task :) > > Start by never executing data. Your own data, or someone else's. But every analog-computer-like Spice deck causes Spice to execute data. The definitions of these things would disallow LOTS of your normal computing, but won't be effective against malware slightly outside the box. And, hackers are always more than slightly outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web