Re: RNG at Camelot
"One would have thought it's something that could be built in to a modern CPU."
Intel have that, but as it is a secret black box, who would trust it?
1731 posts • joined 15 Mar 2007
"One would have thought it's something that could be built in to a modern CPU."
Intel have that, but as it is a secret black box, who would trust it?
Oh I would not worry about a lack of a willy, as in decades of engineering work I have never needed to use mine in a professional capacity. Also I think you will find that waving lady-bits around will trump any willy-based competition!
Sorry for omitting ReFS, just I have not seen that actually used yet. And it is also Windows-only!
I thought I might as well come out from under my bridge to weigh in on this:
In the beginning there was no Windows security at all, and BillyG said Lo! Make it so we don't suck! Thus Dave Cutler was employed to design a worthy OS and, being who he is, it had to be non-UNIX in every aspect, presumably due to some nasty experience at the hands of some UNIX admins at a student party or similar.
Thus he created NT, and we saw it was good and multi-platform. Anything and everything had an ACL for security and computer scientists around the world marvelled at how complex one could create a machines permissions. Alas, it did not last because those in MS' demonic marketing department decided that it had to be compatible with some legacy stuff based upon the old singer-user non-networked model of security, and speed was poor and thus the video subsystem, and other stuff, was thrust into the ring 0 code that once was pure kernel. Then it became x86 only, until very recently when the bastard child WinRT was created.
And darkness descended upon the windows ecosystem as software was allowed free reign by default to do things it should not, and the tenderest parts of the user's nether regions became the favourite lunch of malware writers the world over.
Meanwhile the old UNIX/Linux model chugged along on the bases of multi-user systems with a crude, but effective, set of permissions that were enforced by default leading to far less trouble.
And so children, the lesson here is analogous to the tortoise and the hare: Windows should have been the pinnacle of security, but was let down by pesky users not knowing or caring how to use ACLs, and by time it became a problem so much legacy software was doing it all wrong. Given you need to use a tool to simply find out what ACLs are in use, it is hardly surprising.
Linux is indeed less sophisticated by default, but as its basic segregation of admin & user has always been enforced, software for it always played well that way, thus basic security has always "just worked".
For ACLs on Linux you can copy this way:
getfacl file1 | setfacl --set-file=- file2
And yes, ACLs on Linux are not completely consistent across different file systems, but how consistent is Windows ACLs across file systems? Oh yes, it is only NTFS...
Nothing like a good cross-forum argument!
Arguing security on ACLs versus permission bit-masks is so last decade...
As yes, those "unskilled and lazy developers" who wrote stuff like Outlook express (which saved emails at one time to random/cryptically names hidden folders under Program Files) and Office (that, unless patched, failed when XP SP3 finally turned on the firewall by default)?
With MS playing fast-and-loose with software development for such a long time, often to get round the speed or effort penalty of doing it right, can you really blame other developers of that era for doing the same?
Maybe the VR show is all about the other sort of strap-on? Explains the general look of enfeeblement....
For whom? The boss who is not getting in the BOFH's way, or the beancounter who turns down the boss' most excellent suggestion for new kit desperately needed for his support team?
You know, those 4k monitors and extra storage arrays for "speciality" content?
I'm less concerned by lawful access, based on a court order from any competent government, than unwarranted hoovering of all data "just in case".
Have an upvote for using "salubrious", oh and a beer.
Thanks for the feedback, I stand corrected.
"If you follow the spaghetti trail that is the source code"
I think you have identified a significant problem just there.
"I.e. it's read-overflow (or 'buffer overflow' by reading rather than writing) - nothing to do with the memory allocation!"
If they are really using a stack-based source then electric fence would not have caught it, but I would have hoped some of the code profiling tools would have thrown up a warning about the copy size being potentially bigger than the buffer.
I'm not sure, but usually if you overrun a buffer then standard tools like the "electric fence" library or the valgrind tool fill find the problem.
Of course, if you write obscure code and use a not-very-well-thought-through alternative version of malloc() then things might not go so well...
"You using calloc doesn't solve a damn thing."
Except in this bug it would have, as the padding beyond the heartbeat request that was returned when the request length was longer would always be zero'd. Thus no leaks.
Where you are correct is that it won't stop other heap-walking mischief where something else gets hold of a freed block with sensitive data. Though others using calloc() by default would minimise that risk as well.
What would be nice would be a built-in cfree() equivalent that would clean up by already knowing the allocated buffer size to zero it, so that you could use "#define free(x) cfree(x)" (or some compile flag) to apply generically without having to re-write code to pass the size as well.
ALL computers leave essential information in memory - they need to in order to work!
The issue here, as is so often the case, is poor use of malloc()/free() and the opportunity for such memory to be re-used without sanitisation.
I'm not an expert, but I use calloc() in all but uber-time-critical steps partly to stop this sort of thing, and partly so when I do make a boo-boo at least I get consistent borking as it always starts with zero'd memory before I go on to abuse it.
The patch is about keeping the keys in memory that is not easily re-used, which is good, but as already reported the OpenSSL project really needs some proper support and a bit more code review. Hey NSA/GCHQ could you do something useful for us for a change?
Thanks for that champaign comparison!
Though I now feel a bit dirty having visited the Daily Mail site.
That was my first thought, as how many Blue Ray players have DAC and analogue electronics that is even a match for studio quality 16-bit/CD style hardware, let alone enough to show differences (if any) in the standards?
Oh yes, these disks will sound *different* but that is down to "re-mixing" for effect, not because you get a fundamentally better product.
As others have pointed out FLAC is already better than CD (higher quality possible with less storage) and no DRM - what is there not to like?
Ah, so that is the BOFH's strategy!
In most cases the XP machines that can't be economically replaced are so because of one or two specific jobs, and very rarely will that need much, if any, internet access. So a firewall that simply white-lists the things it needs (e.g. NTP and specific IP addresses it needs) will stop most things.
If you can't access web/email on a given machine then it won't get drive-by attacks and also no casual use. If it can't talk to most of the internal machines then such attacks won't spread.
And of course you have disable auto-run on all devices, if not mass storage completely, to stop USB attack vectors on every machine?
Citations? Or you are simply talking bollocks. Again.
"Munich city authority migrated around 14,800 of the 15,000 or so PCs"
"that migrating to LiMux instead of modernizing its existing Microsoft software would save it over €11 million"
I doubt it has anything to do with the OS, as most consumers hardly know what an OS is. More likely good deals on contract phones and/or well demoed units show the good points.
Its nice to see MS struggle to dominate a market, but also it is good to have more than a two-horse race.
A lot of DOS software will run happily on dosemu on Linux, including MS' C 6.0 compiler.
Certainly more than will run on 64-bit Windows...
When faced with a sick Windows box, my steps are:
1) Open it and hoover out dust & crap, then check for Bulging Capacitors Of Death on the motherboard.
2) Boot a Linux CD/USB (old PCs often wont boot from USB happily so CD/DVD needed) and run the memory tester.
3) Check the HDD SMART status to see if its dying.
4) Boot a BitDefender or Kaspersky "rescue CD" and check for root kits and lesser malware.
If all of the above pass, then you know its 'just' a simple problem. But for most PCs not looked after by a competent Windows admin, you know its going to have so much crap installed and partly uninstalled that saving the data and nuking from orbit is the best solution.
That is, assuming they have the original Windows disk / rescue disk they were told to make when the PC was new...
Or use a VM of XP on any OS of choice, more flexible.
But neither deals with XP in interface applications where it has to deal with custom hardware cards.
The "backward compatiblity of Linux" problem is when you change kernel version and some muppet decided, yet again, to change APIs on the basis that they assume all can just re-compile.
What I said was you can patch a working system for security holes in virtually every case without changing versions. I did not say it was easy, but possible. With MS you have no such ability at all, and given the typical extended support costs they are asking for you could hire a decent programmer just for that job alone.
The MC6800 series is a CPU, not a computer platform, i.e. not a standardised board with "computer" (CPU, RAM, boot loader, etc) and expansion slots for extra interfaces & custom cards.
Most equipment designers want to concentrate on the "added value" they provide, which is the custom part, and not to have to develop the computer/boot loader/networking/etc.
That was why the original IBM-AT was so attractive - you got a functioning stand-along computer, along with plenty of development tools, and documented hardware that made it easy to build a special ISA card for whatever custom job you needed done.
The transition to Windows made that harder but safer (Linux is marginally easier as you can see most device driver's code to copy & adapt, but neither as simple nor dangerous as DOS' direct-to-hardware approach), and PCI is far more complex to implement (even with a cots chip or IP core), but the same basics apply: a PC is still a cheap, easy and longest lasting platform to develop for compared to any other I can think of.
You are right that Windows was a bad choice of platform for so many reasons, but usually the decision is based on what is cheap & practical now, with the presumption that product development and support will continue so upgrades to newer hardware/OS are thus managed.
In practice companies fail, get bought over, or otherwise decide to orphan products so support stops but lots of users have business-critical stuff that is no longer upgradable when the OS, like Windows, drops aspects of backwards-compatibility (often for other good reasons, like security).
Sadly short of an open source system, you are stuck making the best of what you have, not what you wanted.
More recent MS OS with product activation checks are even worse and should never be used. But they will, because some green programmer only knows that way and all problems look like nails...
But retuning to one of your gripes, that of PC hardware, what other computer platform has been more-or-less supported for 20 years? It is far from ideal, but a longer supported choice is hard to find.
Here are some ISA motherboards:
If you need more then various 19" rack mount PCs support ISA / PCI mixes.
We still have ISA cards with DOS control software, but now running in dosemu on Linux (which allows selective control of direct hardware access).
Not as such, but with Linux you have the code and the patches and if it matters enough find someone who can patch things and also there is an incentive to share that.
In most cases it is stuff that MS has dropped that makes upgrading a pain, along with DRM-like stuff that rejects old drivers that are not signed, etc.
But really for most XP-dependants the road now is likely to be one of auditing what they do, why, and how to isolate them from t'Internet and then moving all web/email/exposed stuff to newer, more secure, machines.
I quite agree, he should be dancing the Tyburn jig for such appalling crime against humanity - that of promoting Windows 8 to the press!!!
 A single exclamation mark is hardly enough to convey my indignity, but 4 is just getting stupid.
Ah yes, the site that pulled the blog about the money-grabbing approach of match.com when, ah yes, when they were bough over for $50M:
While I fully support LGBT rights, I find this a pointless attack on an open-source project for the past personal actions of one person. No doubt by those with numerous gadgets made in China by what is barely different from slave labour...
What ever you do, do not spill your precious fluids!
Yours sincerely, General Jack D. Ripper.
"...and legal ways to do it without pissing off US government too much."
IANAL but as far as I know the "patriot act" can be used to force them to provide data even from overseas sites, irrespective of other laws that may apply. So yes, it is good they are willing to pay lip service to EU laws and expectations, but if it matters you still can't depend on it.
IBM has a lot to lose financially from any such involvement with the NSA (even if that is a legal requirement of doing business in the USA), thus they will be as "economical with the truth" as they dare, just short of statements that could lead jail-time.
So yes, I suspect they "lied".
Hmm, on 2nd thoughts maybe a £100 Android table won't be that much more secure than their old XP box unless they are adverse to installing stuff.
I don't use windows enough to know what is the best backup software for typical home use, but I know from experience that windows own backup sucks donkey balls in terms of portability for getting your files back again after a major crash.
Suggestions folks for a good Windows backup program?
What you should already be doing - put them on a separate network area with no internet access (or heavy firewall control for specific sites they have to access), disable autorun on all drives, and force all personnel on pain of cattle-prod to have any USB sticks scanned on a known good machine before they plug them in.
If it is someone who really needs XP natively for some special application then they will already be taking precautions.
If it is a home user without any technical skills or the money to simply buy a new PC they are screwed, unless someone is willing to help them. At least a Linux install can be done for beer money, so folk on a really low budget have some option for safe web use.
Failing all of that, there are £100 android tablets out there...
They obviously never employed little Bobby Tables:
" It isn't something that really adds to the cost."
No costs - what of patents, etc, that have to be licensed?
What kind of 3D?
If its polarising type you loose some brightness, if active shutter you have to add the hardware to support the headsets (and probably get one with the TV, which is just great for a typical family).
In most cases, probably special hardware aside, if you have XP-specific software the best solution is to run an XP VM in another host OS (my choice Linux, but Win7/8 just as effective).
You get 100% XP compatibility, no future hardware driver issues, the ability to restrict internet access to the (soon very vulnerable) XP VM, and a host computer that runs whatever new stuff you need fairly safely.
If I was being aggressive I would say "because they sold it with so many bugs in the first place".
If I was being helpful I would have suggested to MS that they could have offered support for, say, $5 per user per year after the first year. That is pretty small per user, but a tidy sum with some hundreds of millions of users and you could get support as long as you want, and they can afford to pay the staff to do so.
But doing what the customer wants seems to be an alien concept to so many companies.
"Try using a 13 year old install of XP on a 13 year old PC and you'll find that it doesn't work...very well at all."
It works fine if you have the original configuration - and typically that means no AV and anti-spyware running, and not piles of software that no one really uses but each one starts its own updater on boot-up. If not running well, usually some RAM as an upgrade is enough to restore sanity cheaply.
However, I think you will find there are two classes of hold-outs where the machine is newer but they stick with XP:
(1) Folk without the income or desire to spend on a PC, the old "it works fine for me and I hardly use it anyway" brigade. Definitely not El Reg readers.
(2) Folk who have the budget and support, but are sticking with XP because something they have won't run acceptably on a newer OS. Now you could argue they should simply upgrade the program(s) they use to avoid this, but there could be a whole range of reasons why not:
2.1) Stupidly expensive to do as it was custom software, etc. (thinking here of gov and IE6 lock-in, for example).
2.2) Not possible as no newer software exists (e.g. for old hardware, or company went bust, etc)
2.3) The upgrades change things in ways that will (or could possibly) break something key to their business (e.g. industrial control where it took a lot of time & money to certify the system in the first place).
All can be sorted with enough money, but it is likely to be WAY more than the cost of a new PC/OS.
"people who do choose to buy Apple devices should not then complain about the fact that they're limited to Apple-approved apps and content"
Have you ever spoken to a non-tech user and asked them if they know what they can and can't get for their proposed new shiny toy? Do you think they even considered that when buying?
Given Apple is the market leader in this area (certainly in the high value range) they deserve scrutiny from the technically literate. Just how hard would it be to have a tick-box or similar so users can choose kid-friendly stuff or not? If it is not illegal then Apple should simply classify it, not ban it.
...use a long-handled spoon.
MS look after themselves, resellers are only important if they are absolutely necessary for #1
Best way to play reliably is to get DRM-free content via TPB. Of course, the industry can't see yet why paying for something should be the nicer experience.
Perhaps, but few have access to enough ISP bandwidth for streamed 4k content without horrendous compression artefacts (which removes its single advantage).
Add to the a whole new dimension of DRM that Sony, etc, are talking about for 4k content and I for one will wait and see before buying something that expensive.
"Surely it can't be all about Metro and the lack of start menu?"
Mostly it is, and the general buggering about of where thing are.
Technically using Win8 is a good idea, but myself (and a lot of other El Reg commentards) just find the UI a horrible experience and life simply too short to put in the effort work around it when there is Win7 and various free Linux distros as alternatives.
Did I not read on El Reg that Lenovo, one of the few PC makers to grow in market, are offering Win 7 machines?
"There has been widespread scepticism as to if those numbers show the full picture"
And never have you once provided the report, or figures, to back up your counter-claims.
Even if it was cost-neutral, I would be in favour of our government departments switching simply to be free of US corporate control, and to pay for EU professionals to offer the required support in lieu of MS on-going costs.
"The vast majority of enterprises require a) documents to be interchanged seemlessly and look the same at source and destination"
That only works if you force them all to use the same version of Office and even the same damned printer. Otherwise use PDF as that actually works!
"and VBA macros"
No one wants to use VBA macros. Few really need to use VBA macros, they are 'needed' simply due to legacy lock-in and not even supported on the WindowsRT version of Office. Though I would forgive you for saying that is not a real version of Office...
"To a large degree, you get what you pay for!"
With MS you often don't even get that.
Come on Matt, you don't need to be shy on El Reg's forums - everyone here knows you use Solaris on the desktop and simply like to protesteth too much :)