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 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 09:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hcphrdt0ktf52g188sni01sv0m6rjgq7ng@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518512 |
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 23:18:17 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote: >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. All computers that I know of have instruction sets [1]. Instructions are fetched and executed out of RAM. Sensible memory management hardware divides memory into segments or pages, and each has assignable attributes, like "read-only data" "r/w data" "read-only, executable" "nonresident" "dirty", things like that. Proper use of these facilities makes many common exploits impossible. All this was known decades ago, except to Microsoft and Intel. The structure of c discourages proper memory management. Spice netlists are many levels of abstraction from the machine. Spice interprets net lists; the computer doesn't execute .asc files. Try writing a virus as an LT Spice netlist file. [1] well, ones that are actually used. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 10:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vdthrdhrgaqm8br3j62qr9ia6v57d4m8at@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518543 |
On Sat, 06 Oct 2018 09:52:19 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >The structure of c discourages proper memory management. > >Spice netlists are many levels of abstraction from the machine. Spice >interprets net lists; the computer doesn't execute .asc files. Try >writing a virus as an LT Spice netlist file. Actually, I think LT Spice compiles netlists into x86 machine code. But you (probably) still can't code malware in an .asc file. Possibly an encrypted device model could be bad. I don't know. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 20:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <828uD.3359$aX1.1536@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #518549 |
On 06/10/18 18:53, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2018 09:52:19 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > > >> >> The structure of c discourages proper memory management. >> >> Spice netlists are many levels of abstraction from the machine. Spice >> interprets net lists; the computer doesn't execute .asc files. Try >> writing a virus as an LT Spice netlist file. > > Actually, I think LT Spice compiles netlists into x86 machine code. > But you (probably) still can't code malware in an .asc file. Actually you *can* hide things in source code, as Ken Thompson illustrated in his classic 1984 Turing Award lecture "Reflections on trusting trust"; see https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=358210 > Possibly an encrypted device model could be bad. I don't know. And with that you start on the road to enlightenment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 08:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ufiprd1fusgrj9g3h3aeq8ojh4ah5unt2g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518574 |
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 20:29:08 +0100, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >On 06/10/18 18:53, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2018 09:52:19 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> The structure of c discourages proper memory management. >>> >>> Spice netlists are many levels of abstraction from the machine. Spice >>> interprets net lists; the computer doesn't execute .asc files. Try >>> writing a virus as an LT Spice netlist file. >> >> Actually, I think LT Spice compiles netlists into x86 machine code. >> But you (probably) still can't code malware in an .asc file. > >Actually you *can* hide things in source code, as Ken Thompson >illustrated in his classic 1984 Turing Award lecture >"Reflections on trusting trust"; see >https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=358210 So code an NT Spice netlist that hides malware. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 11:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b7b8913-6ae0-4a42-929c-be96a7995784@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518543 |
On Saturday, 6 October 2018 17:52:31 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote: > All computers that I know of have instruction sets [1]. > [1] well, ones that are actually used. Your mosfet Pdiss computer doesn't. Yes there is still some space for analogue computers. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25vhrddue9hto3mgafp23gs5vuqnfboee7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518550 |
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 11:18:16 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >On Saturday, 6 October 2018 17:52:31 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote: > >> All computers that I know of have instruction sets [1]. > >> [1] well, ones that are actually used. > >Your mosfet Pdiss computer doesn't. Yes there is still some space for analogue computers. > > >NT I was thinking about data-flow computers that don't execute instructions sequentially. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 19:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0decf616-8ce7-47a9-b521-0c6b89f66369@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518434 |
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 2:15:47 AM UTC+10, 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: > >> 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. That's because you don't know what it is, nor appreciate it's significance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem Alan Turing got famous in 1936 for proving that it is an insoluble 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. What's special about multicore processors for secure application? This is the second time that John Larkin has made this claim, and the second time I've asked him to explain himself. Multicore processors can obviously crunch more bits in a given time than a single core, but where's the security advantage? > >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. Anybody who could write in assembler could get around the restrictions imposed by a compiler. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 05:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1aff049a-5229-4964-ad40-977896beaff4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518499 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 10:35:38 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 2:15:47 AM UTC+10, 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: > > > >> 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. > > That's because you don't know what it is, nor appreciate it's significance. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > > Alan Turing got famous in 1936 for proving that it is an insoluble problem. So how is that applicable to this 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. > > What's special about multicore processors for secure application? > > This is the second time that John Larkin has made this claim, and the second time I've asked him to explain himself. Multicore processors can obviously crunch more bits in a given time than a single core, but where's the security advantage? "One processor to rule them all" John isn't interested in learning anything. He already knows all about it. Rick C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 06:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ef04826-a4b4-4f9a-bfea-45b45c47b536@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518528 |
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 10:24:50 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 10:35:38 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 2:15:47 AM UTC+10, 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: > > > > > >> 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. > > > > That's because you don't know what it is, nor appreciate it's significance. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > > > > Alan Turing got famous in 1936 for proving that it is an insoluble problem. > > So how is that applicable to this problem? It's just an example of data string with a guaranteed unpredictable effect. You can inspect the contents of packets as much as you like, but you can't predict what they are going to do. > > > >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. > > > > What's special about multicore processors for secure application? > > > > This is the second time that John Larkin has made this claim, and the second time I've asked him to explain himself. Multicore processors can obviously crunch more bits in a given time than a single core, but where's the security advantage? > > "One processor to rule them all" > > John isn't interested in learning anything. He already knows all about it. Rather like krw, if at higher level. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 18:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eefe0ef7-c84e-42dc-b92d-e81b7cd21258@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518332 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 1:52:31 AM UTC+10, 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. The problem is that pretty much everybody here knows more about the real world that John Larkin, so his ideas about how the real world might change - an incipient ice age or the like - get treated with the contempt they deserve. Fred Bloggs - for instance - is quite insistent that the world is going to change, but his idea conflict with those of Anthony Watts, and John Larkin chooses to believe what Anthony Watts tells him (which is to say what the Koch brothers pay Anthony Watts to tell to the gullible). > People with that > mindset can hardly be expected to design anything interesting, and > don't. That does seem to be the mindset that confuses socialism with communism, and fails to notice that the problem with communism was that it wasn't democratic. Joseph McCarthy concocted a narrative in 1950, and some people still take it seriously. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 19:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05cdd30b-7497-4006-8e12-d713794d30f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518332 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 8:52:31 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote: > 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... Wooden pegs go back centuries, and shingled roofs were known in the stone age (no guessing required, stone-tool-using natives made canoes and totem poles and shingled roofs here before the first explorers showed up). I hang my bathrobe on a wooden peg, and have shingles on the roof. I'm 'willing to consider' but not planning for change. I have the shingles, and the wooden pegs, NOW, doing excellent service. Obsolescence is not a generally true principle. Negotiation between network designers, operators, users means multiple different ideas about what is 'nasty' will always be around. Negotiation between commercial software sellers, software designers, hardware designers, and users is even more fragmentiing. If the current situation is going to improve, tell me HOW. Us old guys have all met someone who thinks that the soup is improved any time he pisses in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 09:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qq3frdlj06iraacv0gantkm0n6bbfd3d14@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518395 |
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:04:49 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote: >On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 8:52:31 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote: > >> 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... > >Wooden pegs go back centuries, and shingled roofs were known in >the stone age (no guessing required, stone-tool-using natives made >canoes and totem poles and shingled roofs here before the first >explorers showed up). I hang my bathrobe on a wooden peg, >and have shingles on the roof. > >I'm 'willing to consider' but not planning for change. I have the >shingles, and the wooden pegs, NOW, doing excellent service. >Obsolescence is not a generally true principle. > >Negotiation between network designers, operators, users means multiple >different ideas about what is 'nasty' will always be around. Negotiation >between commercial software sellers, software designers, hardware designers, >and users is even more fragmentiing. If the current situation is going to >improve, tell me HOW. > >Us old guys have all met someone who thinks that >the soup is improved any time he pisses in it. I've met too many old guys who think that nothing will ever change. Some tube guys gave up electronics because they couldn't understand transistors. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 09:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb2ff31f-9cbe-4a2a-ae40-2b8c175839eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518437 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 12:22:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:04:49 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 8:52:31 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote: > > > >> 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... > > > >Wooden pegs go back centuries, and shingled roofs were known in > >the stone age (no guessing required, stone-tool-using natives made > >canoes and totem poles and shingled roofs here before the first > >explorers showed up). I hang my bathrobe on a wooden peg, > >and have shingles on the roof. > > > >I'm 'willing to consider' but not planning for change. I have the > >shingles, and the wooden pegs, NOW, doing excellent service. > >Obsolescence is not a generally true principle. > > > >Negotiation between network designers, operators, users means multiple > >different ideas about what is 'nasty' will always be around. Negotiation > >between commercial software sellers, software designers, hardware designers, > >and users is even more fragmentiing. If the current situation is going to > >improve, tell me HOW. > > > >Us old guys have all met someone who thinks that > >the soup is improved any time he pisses in it. > > I've met too many old guys who think that nothing will ever change. > Some tube guys gave up electronics because they couldn't understand > transistors. At this point, isn't it pretty obvious JL is just trolling? Rick C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 19:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fbe6b992-25bd-4835-850c-f4152c1a2f4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518438 |
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 2:27:53 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 12:22:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:04:49 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > >On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 8:52:31 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote: > > > > > >> 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... > > > > > >Wooden pegs go back centuries, and shingled roofs were known in > > >the stone age (no guessing required, stone-tool-using natives made > > >canoes and totem poles and shingled roofs here before the first > > >explorers showed up). I hang my bathrobe on a wooden peg, > > >and have shingles on the roof. > > > > > >I'm 'willing to consider' but not planning for change. I have the > > >shingles, and the wooden pegs, NOW, doing excellent service. > > >Obsolescence is not a generally true principle. > > > > > >Negotiation between network designers, operators, users means multiple > > >different ideas about what is 'nasty' will always be around. Negotiation > > >between commercial software sellers, software designers, hardware designers, > > >and users is even more fragmentiing. If the current situation is going to > > >improve, tell me HOW. > > > > > >Us old guys have all met someone who thinks that > > >the soup is improved any time he pisses in it. > > > > I've met too many old guys who think that nothing will ever change. > > Some tube guys gave up electronics because they couldn't understand > > transistors. > > At this point, isn't it pretty obvious JL is just trolling? He might be, but he takes himself much too seriously for this to be likely. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 19:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87340e47-c6c2-4fe7-ade8-ef0ced14f2f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518437 |
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 2:22:28 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:04:49 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 8:52:31 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote: <snip> > >Us old guys have all met someone who thinks that > >the soup is improved any time he pisses in it. > > I've met too many old guys who think that nothing will ever change. > Some tube guys gave up electronics because they couldn't understand > transistors. Those old guys had clearly understood that something had changed. Giving up electronics mightn't have been a constructive reaction to that change, but it did recognise its existence. I don't think that anybody here - with the possible exception of krw - thinks that "nothing will ever change". There is quite a lot of resistance to the idea that John Larkin is any kind of reliable prophet for the way things will change, but that has more to do with the fact that most of us can do critical thinking, and John Larkin can't. John Larkin thinks that Anthony Watts and the rest of climate change denial propaganda machine are presenting reliable evidence that the climate won't change, so he would be an obvious example of a guy who posts here who thinks that things won't change. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 17:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pp5def$1rc9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518297 |
On 04/10/2018 04:12, John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 20:36:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > >> It's sure better than just running straight C99 code on a Windows 95 >> machine connected to the Internet but it's not perfect vulnerabilities >> have been found in the JVM as well. And users who develop are free to >> use whatever code they want when they design their web apps, some of >> which may not have been validated line by line by the developer that >> such vulnerability isn't there. >> >> Just not using C or junky C++ from the 1980s and 90s would help a lot. > > Yes. c pushes everything onto the stack... data, pointers to code, all > sorts of nasty stuff. And x86 brutally mismanages stacks. x86 as implemented in the current crop of Windows operating systems brutally mismanages stacks but the Pentium hardware is still capable of operating as a segmented protected architecture to run Unix. Apple manage to run their OS on Intel hardware with much less user pain. Even Unix platforms can be hacked if they are not properly maintained but it is harder (the most popular applications are often targets). > So, until we get a decent hardware architecture, pseudocode should be > the standard for distributing applications. Too bad that's not going > to happen. > > We're living in the dark ages of computing. Are you willing to give up LTSpice and autorouters completely then or live with an interpreted version that runs more than 10x slower? >> 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. x86 is by no means perfect but it is also by nowhere near as bad as you try to paint it. The problem is mainly sloppy coding and people failing to do proper sanity checks on external inputs to sensitive routines. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <user@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 20:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <JldtD.54901$Ol2.50545@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #518221 |
On 10/03/2018 01:20 PM, John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:53:41 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > >> On 10/03/2018 10:04 AM, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 10:23:15 +0100, Martin Brown >>> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 02/10/2018 22:51, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 09:18:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 07:07:33 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:18:56 +0100, TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For anyone that is interested:- >>>>>>>> https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html >>>>>> >>>>>>> If threats can be tracked, why can't they be blocked? The internet >>>>>>> should not transport malware. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because most such attacks come from hijacked PC's. >>>>> >>>>> A bit of added compute power in the network could snoop packets and >>>>> apply some artificial intelligence to kill the bad stuff. Things like >>>>> that. >>>> >>>> Invoke the magic genie with the all seeing eye. Individual packets can >>>> be made to look quite harmless even when they have a dangerous payload. >>>> You are assuming the existence of a quick solution to the halting >>>> problem when you only have a part of the final program. >>> >>> You are assuming that nothing can ever be done to eliminate viruses >>> and spyware and ransomware. Starship Enterprise will be dead in space >>> because some 3-month old Klingon kid planted a worm in the computer. >>> >>> Nothing will ever change. >>> >>> Got it. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Coupled with the tendency of any kind of heuristic to have false >>>> positives and you quickly get to a situation where the cure is worse >>>> than the disease it is trying to prevent. >>>> >>>> Attempts to blacklist dodgy IP addresses do exist and sometimes work but >>>> more often than not they harm the next encumbent of a dynamic pool of IP >>>> addresses rather than the compromised machine which will just move on. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, a decent OS just wouldn't allow nasties. >>>> >>>> Hardware engineers are inclined to view software as trivial. It isn't. >>> >>> Computers need hardware protection against malware. DEC did that way >>> better than Intel. We could do it even better now. >> >> There's essentially no way to even verify your software compiler isn't >> itself compromised and silently inserting malicious code into your >> binaries, or that all compilers aren't already silently compromised, >> even! Or that the CAD hardware design tools you use to design the >> hardware to provide the protection aren't compromised. Etc. >> >> <http://wiki.c2.com/?TheKenThompsonHack> >> >> > > I'm always amused that people who post to a electronic design group > are so emotionally invested in things being impossible and never > changing. They invent reasons to not design stuff. That's fine with > me... much less competition. By all means if you can design the architecture that can provide that level of security, plus competitive execution speed, and power consumption, and also requisite level of backwards compatibility and OS and hardware support please do I'm not gonna be mad. I'll even put in my promise to buy 1k shares right now I'd sure like to retire by 45 if I can! > A CPU could be hardware firewalled so that it can't mess up anything > but the application it is currently running. Absolutely all access to > external resources could be managed. > > Intel can't even keep data from being executed, or keep stacks from > overflowing and poking hostile code into random places in executable > space. Or protect the system from Word macros. When in doubt, execute > it. > > DEC didn't allow any of that. No CPU should allow that. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 18:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <22bd5232-b65b-4d44-a2ce-a9909e775313@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518221 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 3:20:52 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:53:41 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > > >On 10/03/2018 10:04 AM, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 10:23:15 +0100, Martin Brown > >> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> On 02/10/2018 22:51, John Larkin wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 09:18:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 07:07:33 -0700, John Larkin > >>>>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:18:56 +0100, TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> > >>>>>> wrote: <snip> > >> Computers need hardware protection against malware. DEC did that way > >> better than Intel. We could do it even better now. > > > >There's essentially no way to even verify your software compiler isn't > >itself compromised and silently inserting malicious code into your > >binaries, or that all compilers aren't already silently compromised, > >even! Or that the CAD hardware design tools you use to design the > >hardware to provide the protection aren't compromised. Etc. > > > ><http://wiki.c2.com/?TheKenThompsonHack> > > I'm always amused that people who post to a electronic design group > are so emotionally invested in things being impossible and never > changing. They invent reasons to not design stuff. That's fine with > me... much less competition. Not as amused as the rest of us are by your delusion that you know what you are talking about > A CPU could be hardware firewalled so that it can't mess up anything > but the application it is currently running. Absolutely all access to > external resources could be managed. All the time? > Intel can't even keep data from being executed, or keep stacks from > overflowing and poking hostile code into random places in executable > space. Or protect the system from Word macros. When in doubt, execute > it. > > DEC didn't allow any of that. No CPU should allow that. Perhaps. But DEC got taken over by Compaq in 1998, and Compaq merged with HP in 2002 while Intel still exists. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 09:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pp4ils$8f9$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518221 |
On 03/10/2018 18:20, John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:53:41 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > >> On 10/03/2018 10:04 AM, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 10:23:15 +0100, Martin Brown >>> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 02/10/2018 22:51, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> Of course, a decent OS just wouldn't allow nasties. >>>> >>>> Hardware engineers are inclined to view software as trivial. It isn't. >>> >>> Computers need hardware protection against malware. DEC did that way >>> better than Intel. We could do it even better now. >> >> There's essentially no way to even verify your software compiler isn't >> itself compromised and silently inserting malicious code into your >> binaries, or that all compilers aren't already silently compromised, Actually the ones that you compile yourself from the sourcecode are amenable to direct inspection checking (as is the resulting code). It only takes one level of bootstrapping to get a clean compile. >> even! Or that the CAD hardware design tools you use to design the >> hardware to provide the protection aren't compromised. Etc. >> >> <http://wiki.c2.com/?TheKenThompsonHack> It was the meme running through Blake's Seven and its AI character Orac. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Blake%27s_7#Orac Basically all computers had a bit in them designed by Orac's creator which allowed it to tap into any and all other computers. > > I'm always amused that people who post to a electronic design group > are so emotionally invested in things being impossible and never > changing. They invent reasons to not design stuff. That's fine with > me... much less competition. No. We have a much better idea of what is possible and what will work so we spend much less time tilting at windmills a la Don Quixote. > > A CPU could be hardware firewalled so that it can't mess up anything > but the application it is currently running. Absolutely all access to > external resources could be managed. Dec did that fairly well. IBM did not. > > Intel can't even keep data from being executed, or keep stacks from > overflowing and poking hostile code into random places in executable > space. Or protect the system from Word macros. When in doubt, execute > it. The Intel CPU is (possibly was) quite capable of running a hard protected segmented operating system like OS/2 but IBM made such a hash of marketing it by conflating it with their lockin FUD PS/2 hardware that instead of revolutionising desktop computing it sank without trace. OS/2 still had some niche markets in air traffic control and banking until relatively recently. I suspect few systems remain live now. > > DEC didn't allow any of that. No CPU should allow that. It isn't the Intel CPU at fault here. It has or at least had modes that could support segmented data and code where anything that steps out of line gets summarily terminated with extreme prejudice. Problem is that Windows with a flat memory model with every integer potentially as a pointer to God knows what object allowed chaos. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 09:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <jrdcrdlev3bov3mc2ab9ep0stdlrbdjt49@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518311 |
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:23:25 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 03/10/2018 18:20, John Larkin wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:53:41 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >> >>> On 10/03/2018 10:04 AM, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 10:23:15 +0100, Martin Brown >>>> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 02/10/2018 22:51, John Larkin wrote: > >>>>>> Of course, a decent OS just wouldn't allow nasties. >>>>> >>>>> Hardware engineers are inclined to view software as trivial. It isn't. >>>> >>>> Computers need hardware protection against malware. DEC did that way >>>> better than Intel. We could do it even better now. >>> >>> There's essentially no way to even verify your software compiler isn't >>> itself compromised and silently inserting malicious code into your >>> binaries, or that all compilers aren't already silently compromised, > >Actually the ones that you compile yourself from the sourcecode are >amenable to direct inspection checking (as is the resulting code). It >only takes one level of bootstrapping to get a clean compile. > >>> even! Or that the CAD hardware design tools you use to design the >>> hardware to provide the protection aren't compromised. Etc. >>> >>> <http://wiki.c2.com/?TheKenThompsonHack> > >It was the meme running through Blake's Seven and its AI character Orac. > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Blake%27s_7#Orac > >Basically all computers had a bit in them designed by Orac's creator >which allowed it to tap into any and all other computers. >> >> I'm always amused that people who post to a electronic design group >> are so emotionally invested in things being impossible and never >> changing. They invent reasons to not design stuff. That's fine with >> me... much less competition. > >No. We have a much better idea of what is possible and what will work so >we spend much less time tilting at windmills a la Don Quixote. >> >> A CPU could be hardware firewalled so that it can't mess up anything >> but the application it is currently running. Absolutely all access to >> external resources could be managed. > >Dec did that fairly well. IBM did not. The main CPU of a VAX didn't do i/o; a PDP-8 managed the big iron and did external i/o for the mainframe. The 8 ran simple, solid code. That concept could be applied to a multiprocessor system to absolutely firewall apps from i/o and shared resources. >> >> Intel can't even keep data from being executed, or keep stacks from >> overflowing and poking hostile code into random places in executable >> space. Or protect the system from Word macros. When in doubt, execute >> it. > >The Intel CPU is (possibly was) quite capable of running a hard >protected segmented operating system like OS/2 but IBM made such a hash >of marketing it by conflating it with their lockin FUD PS/2 hardware >that instead of revolutionising desktop computing it sank without trace. > >OS/2 still had some niche markets in air traffic control and banking >until relatively recently. I suspect few systems remain live now. >> >> DEC didn't allow any of that. No CPU should allow that. > >It isn't the Intel CPU at fault here. It has or at least had modes that >could support segmented data and code where anything that steps out of >line gets summarily terminated with extreme prejudice. > >Problem is that Windows with a flat memory model with every integer >potentially as a pointer to God knows what object allowed chaos. x86 protections could be, but usually aren't, better applied. Buffer and stack overflow exploits are still outrageous. But it still has tons of dangerous bugs. The architecture is about 40 years old. "Showstopper" is a good book, about the development of NT. Cutler did it about as well as could be done on x86, a small and tight and fairly secure kernel. After he did that, a gang of idiots at Microsoft went in and broke it. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web