Gnash only implements a (very) small fraction of Flash. In web browser parlance it'd be like comparing Netscape 2 to a modern browser.
470 posts • joined 2 Nov 2015
I'd make an educated guess that since 2010 or so infections via Java outnumber Flash by at least an order of magnitude, even though Java in the form of applets in the browser is pretty much dead by now so Flash has had some time to catch up.
The reason being that the Java bugs were logical errors in the applet sandbox. Once you're out of the sandbox, you have full access to do anything to the computer.
100% reliable and even cross-platform.
Flash has nothing similar - the browser Flash Player simply doesn't have any APIs to do stuff to the underlying OS (like write files to disk arbitrarily and execute them). Flash bugs are, without exception, memory corruption and thus tend to be difficult to exploit reliably.
There's a lot of stuff that could be opensourced without any license issues - basically all of the runtime itself. There are codecs and other third-party stuff of course, but there should be enough to get a working Flash Player, just without support for some file formats and such. Maybe Stage3D would have to go as well (parts of it were developed by a third party IIRC, don't know about the license) but that's replacable.
Hell - to the best of my knowledge there isn't even a current open source version of avmplus, which is under a Mozilla license.
Re: Need to offer decoding software
There isn't any "official" Flash protector/obfuscator in that sense (just DRM for video), so chances are Adobe couldn't help you any more than any third-party developer .
Re: Another thing that Jobs was right about
There is Flash for iPhone - just not the plugin. It uses AOT compilation to avoid the restrictions on interpreted/JITed code.
In fact, several App Store best-sellers have been Flash/AIR based.
Here's to hoping that they keep AIR and the standalone player around, or atleast open source the damn thing.
But the Adobe corporate leaderships are idiots. All of their big successes have basically been coincidences or at best skunk-works projects.
Flash is a damn good platform to develop stuff for. Trying to do some of the stuff you can do in Flash in HTML5 WebGL whatever, or a GUI toolkit, is just... pain and suffering in comparision.
No need for a plugin. I'm not referring to stuff that runs in a browser.
Re: Me likey
I don't really see a reason why you'd run something other than Solaris (or illumOS perhaps) on SPARC outside some very specialized applications and stuff that just refuses to compile on it.
And you'd probably do that in a VM/LDOM.
Really - Solaris is very, very good for Very Important<TM> stuff.
In fact, I'd bet Solaris would be a good choice of an OS to run Postgres on. It's certainly a very good choice for MySQL.
Security wise at least the kernel itself isn't worse than any of the other systems to the extent it would be a reason to choose one over the other.
Memory protection/exploit mitigation is on par with Linux nowadays, but perhaps a bit weaker than OpenBSD (I haven't kept up with what OpenBSD has implemented or not).
And Solaris has a very powerful ACL/RBAC system too.
(I wouldn't recommend giving untrusted users the ability to run code on Solaris of course, but I wouldn't recommend that for any of the others either, at least not out of the box without custom mitigations and voodoo.)
I'm sure that, after you're done playing with your "stack" of shiny toys and/or get fed up with the latest fads and need to actually get stuff done, you'll appreciate ZFS too.
Re: It would appear...
Win32 is the name of the Windows API currently being used.
Despite the name, it's not specific to 32 bit architectures. A 64 bit Windows application still uses the "Win32" API.
This actually makes some sort of sense from a historical standpoint.
The original Windows API was Win16. This was designed for a segmented memory model.
Then came NT and introduced Win32 (which later ended up in Win95 as well). This is designed for a flat memory model and was 'inspired' by Win16 more than actually being a 32 bit extension of it - there are lots of other differences apart from just how memory is addressed.
Porting applications from Win16 to Win32 was a major thing - basically rewriting API calls and the surrounding glue.
But taking an existing 32-bit Win32 application and porting it to 64 bit usually just involves recompiling it. It's still exactly the same API, just with bigger pointers.
Therefore, saying you support the "Win32" API doesn't imply that you don't support 64 bit applications.
Confusing, I know...
Re: Local loop unbundling would of course mean the equivalnet of Openreach being formed.
Of course your connectivity options are going to be worse in a sparsely populated area, just like your options for everything else.
You claimed that 'last mile' was a natural monopoly, without any additional information except mentioning provision of service to a 'housing estate', which to me at the very least implies that it's not a single farm in the boondocks.
You also claimed that noone would line up to provide multiple competing options for a housing estate, or atleast that having multiple last mile providers wouldn't be practical in the majority of cases.
Atleast here, and in other countries where most of the population live in/near cities, this certainly isn't the case.
There are even some very poor countries where you'd be surprised to find several providers line up to hook up your building even when only a small part of the population can afford any sort of permanent internet access. The situation as to whether it makes fiscal sense to build a competing network certainly isn't worse in a country where most/all of the population can afford it.
Last mile service isn't any more of a "natural monopoly" than cellphone/mobile broadband service. In fact even less so, since there's considerably more room for competing providers in the ground/on poles than in the radio spectrum.
Fun fact: In the early days (early 20th century) of landline phone service, there were actually several different competing private networks here. It wasn't until years later that the government decided to form a legal monopoly to take over the networks built by private companies and forbid anyone from building a new one. So even back then last mile service wasn't a natural monopoly.
Re: Local loop unbundling would of course mean the equivalnet of Openreach being formed.
Natural monopoly my ass.
Here, in the big cities you can frequently choose between several different fiber plants to hook up your building.
And when you only havve one choice, this is generally an open network where you either can rent dark fiber to your heart's content, or it's lit but you can choose who should deal with your traffic.
Huh? The site you are accessing (or their network provider if they don't run that part themselves) might very well already be paying Comcast for peering if they don't qualify for a settlement-free peering agreement. Either because they want to deliver bits to Comcast more efficiently, or because doing it that way is cheaper than sending it over their transit. Or both.
Trust me - even with a networking and telco background, this article (as well as a lot of other stuff written about "5G") doesn't make any sense. For the most part, it could as well be a paper generated by SCIgen.
The words... they mean NOTZING!
Your argument is a complete non-sequitur. And full of ad hominems too, if we're gonna go heavy on the Latin.
Was this AirBnB host involved in any way in interning Japanese during WWII? No.
Was this Asian guest interned during WWII? No.
Thus it's completely irrelevant to whether the guest has any claim to the property of the host.
Are you trying to argue for some sort of collective racial guilt?
That has a history of turning ugly pretty quickly...
What about all the war crimes committed by the Japanese during WWII, by the way? Do all Japanese alive today also share in the guilt for that, or does this collective guilt thing only apply to whites?
And let me get this straight. She first accepted the guest, well knowing that the person in question was Asian. After that, and a lot of back and forth with the guest, she had a sudden flash of "non-committed racism"?
You do realize this starts to sound a lot like you made up your mind as soon as you heard "non-white person is angry at white person, mean words were exchanged" and are now grabbing at everything to support your pre-conceived idea that this was some horrible evil racist hate crime?
Following your argument for collective guilt of a whole group for the historical actions of individuals, shouldn't blacks in the US start paying reparations to whites because of their overrepresentation as a group when it comes to crime in general and black-on-white crime (significantly more common than the other way around) in particular? See where your argument goes once you actually stop and think about it?
(N.B. I don't think they should, since I don't subscribe to ideas of collective guilt.)
PS. I'm still not from the US. I also happen to be from a country without any of the colonial history you mention. Not that any of that is in any way relevant to the validity of the argument. Or relevant for making anti-discrimination laws any less wrong.
PS/2. If we're bringing up African colonial history and slave trade, when are Arabs going to start paying reparations to the US for the - once significant - slave trade in white Americans? The first (post-independence) war of the US was to stop this after all - it's not some minor historical glitch...
Do you realize the sheer hilarity of using an argument that discriminates towards people based on their country of origin to ... argue for laws against discrimination towards people based on their country of origin?
Nobody is guilty of anything based on the perceived sins of their ancestors. Is that a really hard concept to apply?
Or do you think it only apply to non-whites? There's certainly no lack of historical immoral behavior from various Asian nations, after all...
PS. I'm not from the US...
PS/2. Reading up a bit on this case, apparently there was no discrimination whatsoever involved, just some harsh words when the guest appeared demanding things outside the original agreement. Considering name and photo are shown on AirBnB, any rejection of a guest based on race would have happened much earlier.
Not that any of this makes any anti-discrimination or affirmitive action legislation any less morally bankrupt, but still...
I don't understand anti-discrimination laws. Why would you want to give money to someone who hates you, to the point where you force them to receive it by law?
Wouldn't it just be easier to cut a check straight to The Daily Stormer if you want to support racism that bad?
In this case there seems to be some issues of contract etc due to the cancelling on such short notice (which you certainly wouldn't need anti-discrimination laws to enforce), but in other cases...
And, uhm, shouldn't private property rights be considered just a tad more important than someone's right not to be offended? Especially when it's about someone staying at your home...
Then you at the very least need people who can rewrite/redesign all your existing stuff to fit that model and then maintain the result. Chances are that's not your existing developers / IT dept and/or that you'd need significantly more hands to actually do this with all relevant existing software in a reasonable timeframe.
So, point still stands.
Re: Address the real software vulnerability
Forward 15 years after a lot of places followed your advice and switched to MacOS:
"There should be no sympathy for companies, organizations, academia, governments or any other entity that continues to use Apple Mac Operating System (OS) Software that has been confirmed as the attack point for every Ransomeware and attack Vector in last several years.
Viruses and Ransomeware do not affect Windows, Linux or ChromeOS computing endpoints, so the continued use of Windows is a stupid and non-sensical decision in 2017, particularly for Business and governments."
It's a matter of market share and thus attacker's desire to target it, not some inherent security deficiency that the other systems lack. Especially in the case of the current outbreak (NotPetya) blaming Windows is a sure sign of idiocy since it largely spread via stupid admin practices and not some inherent Windows flaw.
In fact, there has been ransomware for both Linux and MacOS. They just aren't nearly as wide-spread because both systems have a really low share of desktop users, especially in the kind of places that tend to give large headlines when hit by ransomware.
As for ChromeOS, if you want a really locked-down desktop environment with no chance of running applications introduced from outside, you can do that with Windows (or any other of those systems) instead of signing over your soul (and corporate secrets) to Google. If anything, THAT should be considered a non-sensical decision, particularly for business and government and anyone else that actually does real work on their computers.
PS. The large TJX credit card compromise a number of years ago mostly involved open WLANs and SQL injection... not exactly Windows specific attack vectors there either.
What does public clown have to do with outsourcing?
There are lots of places which even have their own physical datacenter but outsource large parts of operating the things in it.
If anything, moving to your typical public clown (like AWS) with their "lots of disposable unreliable servers" model would require a typical shop to start outsourcing, since their in-house team won't be able to deal with the huge increase in complexity that follows from that model. Plus you might actually have to toss out and replace a lot of existing, well-functioning, software.
For the "clown services" where individual servers are actually reliable, at most you've gained capacity scaling and not having to maintain the physical boxes. The latter (and to some extent the former) which you can gain in ways that don't involve using someone else's shared infrastructure with all the issues that arise from this.
In any case, this in no way saves you from needing someone (outsourced or not) to keep the things running on the servers.
Re: staff get reamed
Lots of engineering went into this product judging from the teardowns. Like, far far too much.
It's more a question of its' usefulness and value for money...
Re: So, worst code ever?
Like I always write here when people go all "MS code must be so ugly herp derp I eat paste!!11": I have read a lot of MS code. It's certainly not worse than anything else. Certainly mixed quality like any big codebase with a long history, but OTOH some parts (like the kernel) are really, really good to compensate for the eyesores.
To be fair, a lot of the main complaints about Enlightenment there can basically be summed up as "I don't like this GUI toolkit and it doesn't do stuff the way I'm used to. Also, I want it to be in C++!".
You could write something substantially similar about any GUI toolkit... they're pretty much all horrible. Just that if you're lucky you can learn to live with the horrors of one of them, and possibly even begin to like it (known as Stockholm syndrome).
Samsung seems to have some cultural issues though. As well as issues with their Tizen codebase (the example in this article most definitely isn't from Enlightenment - one of the posters complaints is that they refuse to use C++)
Re: Step One: Ban. Step Two: Discredit.
They HAVE already uncovered the scaly claw of NSA behind malware campaigns - see their reports on "Equation Group".
I'm assuming it's type 1 diabetes because of his age.
How did he end up not being able to pay for insulin (it's dirt-cheap, and easily accessible for obvious reasons). And how did he survive not having insulin - did he end up hospitalized for ketoacidosis or something?
By the way - what sort of "insurance" is it that you can get AFTER getting sick and have it pay for the treatment? Normally getting health insurance involves a medical check-up and examination of hospital/medical records. Just like insuring a building involves a check that, you know, the building is actually there and hasn't burned to the ground.
Is this article perhaps really an euphemism for breaking stuff while getting naughty in the DC?
Involving a wrist icicle, perhaps: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wrist%20icicle
Re: The unexpected perils fo data centre migrations
Funny, all BFUPSE (Big F... UPS Explosion) I've encountered have been "unprecedented" according to the vendors...
Re: I don't see a problem.
Those that do DRM and actually care about the results obviously do detect VMs and refuse to play in them or only play degraded quality.
Same with open source video drivers etc. Won't play. DRM gizmo authenticates to the video driver which authenticates to the hardware. All data between them is then passed encrypted. This is already present in most PCs - see Protected Audio-Video Path.
No compliant DRM gizmo / video driver / etc for your OS? You'll simply have to pirate the movie if you want to watch it.
Re: Advanced bullshit.
For desktops in general, the market share of Linux is very small.
Including home users.
Harder to measure of course, but the times I've looked at user-agent statistics of various big sites it's always been in the low single-digits at most.
Yet when Windows boxes are compromised because of crappy admining, the Linux crowd immediately and loudly proclaims it's the fault of Microsoft...
Re: The point is...
Not an accident - after AF447, someone at Inmarsat had a sudden flash of insight and decided to start logging more data about the comms.
Re: Come again?
"You'd still need context, though. Harder to get without access to the innards."
Context here would be a password/PIN entry screen, or what's being typed in general. If you say "randomize the positions of things on the PIN entry screen", then you have suddenly slowed down the user and thus made shoulder-surfing/secret recording of the entry a lot easier. Tradeoffs and all...
And I don't sit around designing exotic iPhone bugs for a living, believe it or not. I'm sure that the people who actually do can come up with a myriad other ways of haxxor you with a day's unsupervised access to the phone, which don't involve a dodgy screen.
"Still need a way to EXfiltrate those conversations, and if the radio chips are also protected, then you'll need a total package. Might as well use a specialized bug in that instance."
The problems you encounter when making a small bug are the power supply and antenna. In a phone you have both - a miniature transmitter is not only readily available commercially but also trivial to build from parts.
"ATMs have to sit by their lonesome for days at a time. Who within a location actually pays attention to the PIN pads during normal operation?"
I can't find a public document with the whole standard (thank Jesus/Allah/Buddha/Kek I haven't had to deal with PCI standards in a good while), but the requirements are in the range of withstanding tampering for 10 hours or a budget of a couple tens of thousands USD. Solitary ATMs presumably have additional layers (as opposed to payment terminals or such) - the whole shell of the ATM itself, associated alarms, CCTV, etc.
"As for techs, that usually points to inside jobs, meaning they have access to key chips. Rogue techs could use side channels like hidden cameras, but again that's close to insider status to get them clandestinely in the machines and outside this context."
The EPP standards basically say that opening the thing (eg for service) should nuke the keys. They say very little about what's stopping someone from grabbing the keys as they are re-entered, becacuse this is really difficult to do.
"That's why they've been working on this VERY hard for the last 20-30 years, coming up now with this chain of trust system for the 4K systems (as well as the consoles, which double as 4K players) based on what the phone makers have been doing"
Budget for copying a single movie: Small (price of movie for a home user or total sales for a commercial piracy operation)
Budget for pwning a single phone: Large (potentially millions)
It's even worse than that - stopping a phone from leaking data to a physical attacker would be like stopping someone from recording a movie by pointing a camera at the screen.
Plus, perhaps most importantly, 4K movies get pirated all the time - so either it's broken already (just not public), or there's no incentive to break it because they get out another way. Admittedly they're not as frequent on the torrent sites, it seems (I rarely watch movies and don't even own a 4K display so I don't keep track of the particulars), but this might just be due to lack of demand for the higher quality.
"(and some phone STILL haven't been rooted or custom-ROM'd at this point; ask xda)."
All of them can be and regularly are rooted... with a couple of million dollars worth of gear (scanning electron microscope, FIB workstation, high-freq logic analyzers, etc), knowledge and time/budget.
It's just meant to be unfeasible for the end user and lower-range attackers (and slow down higher-range attackers so they can't do it en masse).
If screens turned out to be a viable vector of pwnership and DRMish protection applied to them, that sort of budget would immediately start going towards breaking it.
Then the sort of attacker who would pwn your phone with a fake screen would ... pwn your phone with a more expensive fake screen.
So even if we don't consider all the other very viable (and far more likely) attacks that applies if you give someone a day of unmonitored fiddling with your phone, the most you have accomplished is shifting the attackers' budget bracket slightly upwards. I should remind you that a fake phone-pwning screen wouldn't exactly be cheap on the grey forensics/spook market in the first place - five or six digits most likely.
Re: Come again?
You can presumably sniff things like EMI, or otherwise detect hand movements. Lots of possibilities here, with interesting precedent in what's been done against PIN pads.
Plus your phone has other secrets to protect than just its' contents. Like everything being said in the same room as the phone, even if it's off if it's bugged.
Regarding PIN pads, the VISA EPP standard is not meant to withstand a day or so of unsupervised access, which is what handing your phone in for repair certainly does in a lot of cases.
Or protect against a rogue service technician at all, atleast in more ways than having the keys split across multiple persons (which doesn't do you any good if the thing comes back from service trojaned to the hilt).
The scenario for DVD/BluRay/etc is to protect the actual digital data, to prevent an exact (high-definition high-quality) copy, not keep the contents per se seciret. Their whole purpose is to do a very lousy job at that so you can actually watch the movie.
Same with games - you are SUPPOSED to be able to play the game.
The scenario of a phone is to protect many different secrets from getting read out in any way, or intercepted in the first place.
Plus the value of making a copy of a single BluRay disc is substantially lower than the potential value of getting the contents, or simply bugging the environment, of a single phone.
If you hand something in for service and don't trust the service techs, consider it pwnd. This is almost a basic law of computing.
Re: And people complain about Apple discouraging third-party repair shops
And really, do people actually want unrepairable phones?
Today's smartphones can cost more than a decent desktop or even laptop computer. Do you really want them to be impossible to repair reasonably - or only repairable under the conditions and prices dictated by the manufacturer (if they're even interested in doing it at all)? Just to stop some attack scenario with dodgy parts that you'd expect in case of a nation-state level attacker and/or high-level industrial espionage, not someone out to empty random bank accounts or get ad clicks (taps?).
Just look at the uproar a number of years ago when Apple started using Pentalobe screws to discourage fiddling with the phone internals. And that's something that's trivial to defeat even on a shoe-string budget...
There could definitely be a market for phones that are essentially epoxy bricks riddled with tamper detection gizmos and severely paranoid hardware (TrustNo1, not even the screen), if there isn't already, but I doubt even the vast majority of security-conscious users would appreciate the tradeoff.
Such a phone would presumably be subject to similar security testing/certifications to other tamper-protected devices (PIN pads for card transactions, for example... or good-old fashioned locks and safes) where you have a clear threat model - an certain amount of time and/or money needed to break it. Even though there certainly is some overlap in the technology employed, this is still very different from some ad-hoc DRM scheme on random components a bunch of leet haxorz at the manufacturer came up with.
Re: Come again?
You simply need to add a small circuit board with a microphone (or other listening device - radio/EM fields/position/etc) on it. This is not stopped in any way whatsoever by any chain of trust.
Rather it's stopped by tamper protection and physical security, both of which are, by definition, not relevant if you just handed your phone to someone and expect him to switch out the screen.
There's no way to compare keeping secrets on a phone unreadable to preventing home users from pirating BluRay discs - there are simply no commonalities between the scenarios.
Regarding switching out the entire phone - sure, but it might be a tad suspicious if you hand in your old worn thing (probably dinged up from whatever broke the screen as well) and get back a brand new phone. Just sayin'.
Re: Come again?
You don't need to replace any hardware in a phone to pwn it. You might simply add a bug - this has been done since the early days of telephony.
Or you could replace the entire contents of the phone with something that just shows you a fake login screen and then errors out after entering the password/PIN code, sending it to the guy in possession of the real phone, if that's what you're after.
Also, the threat models are radically different, but that's probably another discussion.
Re: Come again?
Again - my point is that you HAVE to consider the hardware trusted, not that someone can't actually compromise the hardware with physical access.
If someone has access to your phone to the point where they can change the screen, it's game over.
If you want to prevent that, you don't do it by putting some DRMish stuff in the screen to authenticate it (a la Apple and the fingerprint sensor). This is completely meaningless even if we assume there's no way to stick an evil screen in place considering that they have unrestricted access to literally everything.
To prevent this, you simply don't allow untrusted parties to have that sort of access to the phone in the first place.
It would be relevant if this was about connecting an external screen to a desktop computer, or perhaps some sort of Lego phone where replacing the screen does not involve taking it apart.
It's not relevant here.
This is, of course, not a new concept or fear.
In the case of a pure CPU backdoor at the mask level, it would be pretty easy to insert a backdoor that for example would allow a local attacker full kernel compromise. For example "if certain conditions are true, then bypass all page protection checks". This would be very desirable for a TLA looking to compromise phones - then all they would need would be a single clientside exploit in any app (of which there are plenty), instead of the usual chain of clientside exploit -> sandbox escape / local privilege escalation.
The same thing could be done with desktop systems of course, but somehow I imagine/hope it's more difficult to sneak a backdoor in at Intel than at some obscure SoC vendor...
Yes - good clarification.
I think the general cutoff between untrusted/trusted should be something along the lines of "if the screen is locked / user logged out, can this be reasonably be used to bypass that?"
So USB sticks would be untrusted. The motherboard would be trusted even though you could theoretically hook up a logic analyzer and signal generator to it. Memory would be trusted as long as it remains in the box (you'd expect someone to be able to remove the memory and read it out so you'd scramble the contents, but not expect it to be under attacker control as long as it remains in place).
Other considerations might apply if you have an advanced threat model, but then the answer isn't to attempt to build a box where nothing trusts anything else or even itself, but rather to prevent someone from getting in the box in the first place (tamper detection and/or filling the entire thing with epoxy and/or applying physical security like locks and safes around it).
My point is that you essentially HAVE to consider the hardware trusted. If it's compromised, game over.
If an attacker can replace basic hardware components they have already won.
I totally fail to envision a scenario - any scenario at all - where the HARDWARE ITSELF wouldn't be considered trusted...
Where did they get this gay stuff from? Obviously the Pi foundation are actually pushing a neo-Nazi agenda since the rainbow is actually a hate symbol: https://pics.onsizzle.com/the-rainbow-flag-is-the-newest-hate-symbol-of-the-24412651.png
Look at Trump (Literally Hitler) displaying it. Are we really gonna let the Pi foundation get away with this brazen display of racist Nazi propaganda?
Most of the Halon scares are about accidental (or not-so-accidental...) discharges, not actual fires.
And if things really are burning, you are unlikely to be worse off from the Halon byproducts than what the combustion would have resulted in otherwise.
Hydrogen halide production isn't something that only occurs in a fire in the presence of Halon, you know*. Not to mention the others - I'm no expert on the toxicology of combustion gases, but carbon monoxide certainly comes to mind.
* Halon produces HF while many burning plastics would be mostly HCl. HF is more toxic (spill the liquid on you and the acid burns aren't your big problem - it gets absorbed into the bloodstream and poisons you... really does a job on bones as well unlike most acids), but HCl is the stronger acid. I'd think direct lung/airway damage would be relevant long before systemic toxicity when inhaling the thing?
Re: An Education for the TLA's
Of course you are not going to arrive at the exact same implementation details. But it's not gonna be news to you (or anyone else writing AVs in the post-Dark Avenger Mutation Engine era, so early rather than mid-90's) that one is needed in the first place if you're gonna do a full-blown AV. From then you also have to decide on whether it will be a simple "big switch()" type emulator or some sort of binary translation.
But the source code of the emulator of one specific AV is pretty uninteresting for evasion purposes, plus any source has a short shelf-life since this is among the things frequently fiddled with in auto-updates. If an AV company encounters a sample that screws up emulation and there are no other usable signatures, they are gonna push out an update to the emulator (or the rules governing it). And that's the end of whatever smart evasion trick you found by reading the source.
Noone actually sits around evading one specific AV and nothing else. And there's a lot of sharing of samples/signatures (as well as outright pilfering from rivals, but that's another story entirely), so once you have one detection more are sure to follow.
At most the situation can arise where one AV keeps detecting something after the rest have been successfully evaded, but the chances of that particular AV being KAV of the specific version you have source code of is pretty slim.
Plus, the most important emulator trick is probably just spending enough cycles doing make-believe "work" so that the emulator gives up.
This is also an issue you will face universally when developing an emulator without ever having seen an existing AV before (and you'll also realize early on that one of the most important things you need to do is quickly determine how much time to spend emulating a specific file).
Re: An Education for the TLA's
I'm sure that just about everyone for whom it would be relevant has read the Kaspersky source that leaked a number of years ago, and/or reverse engineered any parts that would be interesting.
But really, there's not much to see in standard AV software. Basically, if you sit down and try to accomplish the same thing as they do, you'll realize there are only a few ways it can be done. At most there'll be some rootkit detection tricks and such, but they will almost by definition be useless since rootkit authors will have tested their stuff against the AVs and worked around it already.
They most likely run a lot of Windows atleast, since that's what's used for pretty much all industrial control systems.
Re: And is there an actual definition of hate speech attached to this bill?
Whether or not someone else perceives your "need" to say something should not be a prerequisite for being allowed to say it. That's part of the whole freedom of speech thing.
Just as whether or not someone else perceives your speech as offensive, factually wrong or just plain stupid should not be a reason to prohibit it.
Look - you should read some of the things that Germany considers "illegal hate speech".
Take the writings of Germar Rudolf for example. Germany has literally imprisoned him for years, banned his books, destroyed the books already in circulation (an old-fashioned state-sanctioned book burning!), and confiscated the proceeds from the sale.
Is his overall conclusion wrong? Most likely.
Is there any shred of "hate", incitement to violence, or anything except an attempt at civilized discourse anywhere in the banned writings? No.
Is he a Nazi, perhaps acting as part of some banned group with a violent agenda? No. His motive is essentially that the German genocide of Jews is being used to justify the post-war genocide of Germans.
(I'm not linking anything here but use a search engine located in a country with something actually resembling freedom of speech and you'll find his personal site)
Again - disagreeing with someone is not a valid justification for banning him from saying it. Even if it hurts someone's feelings, or a lot of persons feelings. Even if it's provably wrong, on the "Earth is flat" level of moronity. Even if literally everyone else in the whole world think there's no "need" to say it.
Re: And is there an actual definition of hate speech attached to this bill?
So, saying that it's your opinion that something didn't happen doesn't count as having an opinion about it if the subject is controversial enough. Got it.
Re: And is there an actual definition of hate speech attached to this bill?
In Germany, even questioning the established narrative of certain historical events (most famously the Holocaust) is illegal. People literally go to jail for years for this.
Restricting speech because the speaker has the wrong opinion on something clearly goes way beyond restricting direct incitements to violence or such.
It's somewhat weird that they didn't implement all functionality needed for ransomware. They must have known that sooner or later, probably sooner, someone would realize that it's not possible for anyone to decrypt the data. Wouldn't exactly be a lot of extra work at that point.
Did they actually intend for this to be discovered after the initial chaos?
In case someone has missed it (and I can't find a Reg article mentioning it, but that might just be me being a retarded starfish as usual) - apparently this "NotPetya" is not ransomware: https://securelist.com/expetrpetyanotpetya-is-a-wiper-not-ransomware/78902/
It simply isn't possible for anyone, including the attacker, to decrypt the data.