By the time anyone figures it out the attackers, now equipped with the false sense of security created by the signature, have hacked many other people and captured even more signing keys. Some college student gets a signing key to sign his calculator app and then gets hacked, and now there is malware signed by John Smith of New Jersey. And that's not the only country with organized crime or corruption.Īs soon as you have many small developers signing things you can't even really exclude by country at all because there are too many soft targets for malware authors to steal keys from. You can't just write off a country like that. Some of the malware authors are, so you're screwed. Does Russia enforce the law? Sure, against people who aren't politically connected.
#2016 handbrake for mac encode fails even though vlc plays software
To pick a country, quite a lot of entirely legitimate software comes out of Russia. Promoting reliance on the signature to mean something. This is what I mean by worse than useless. Then if he ships and signs malware, he can be sued and/or charged criminally.
> The signature only needs to mean "we've verified the author's ID and he lives in a country that enforces the law". The latter has generally been considered bad form. Of cause there has always been a pressure from the marketing departments to have a new major release, while the engineers has been holding back, so you have always seen major releases that isn't that major, and sometimes incompatible changes sneaked into minor releases. Recently many projects has abandoned this pattern, including Chrome and Firefox, the Linux kernel and others. This was generally observed in both proprietary and open source software alike, and is still used in many projects. * y incremented but not x: Minor new features and bug fixes. * x is incremented: Major new features, possibly incompatibilities Traditionally, version numbering has been used to signal the significance of the release. Sometimes, especially for programming languages, the 1.0 version is used to signal that from no on there will be no arbitrary change to syntax or semantics after that, so that it can be relied on. Since it is public from the start there is no 1.0 moment. Usually 1.0 for proprietary software means "the first version shipped to customers", while for open source, the very first commit is 0.0, and then it goes from there.
Put 1-4 together, and you get a system where a big mmap(2)ed file that takes up all the physical memory of an otherwise-idle system, will end up putting that thing into the same places each time (because that's the only place such a large allocation will fit.) IIRC (not a kernel dev), Linux at least has an allocation strategy that will effectively allocate physical memory serially if there's no contention. ASLR just juggled virtual-memory, not physical memory. This will be true to the extent that you have no other memory pressure forcing the page cache to fragment, evict other caches, or overwrite itself.Ĥ. Memory allocations are usually physically contiguous-when you mmap(2) something, and then read every byte of that thing in order, that thing usually ends up in a contiguous run of physical memory as clean page-cache entries. "Clean" mmap(2)ed pages count as "cache" in the above.ģ. The OS likes to fill physical memory with cache, rather than leaving it empty, because modern memories zero quickly enough for the OS to pretend it has "free memory", only actually freeing it on demand.Ģ.
0 kommentar(er)
