Posts by Doctor Syntax

Linus Torvalds on security: 'Do no harm, don't break users'

Re: “Because without users, your program is pointless..."

"Maybe the important factor is that it's widely used even if the Linux or Unix label is hidden on the inside."

A few disconnected thoughts along this line.

Firstly, mobiles, Macs and Chromebooks have got users out of the notion that a computer has to be Windows. That's moved on from the time that the original Linux netbooks were maybe a step too far for the average user. So is there a way of introducing something that isn't Windows and at the same time isn't tied to a service that's trying to monetise the user?

ARM kit is now capable of running a full-featured desktop Linux for a low cost. One problem the original netbook vendors ran into was Microsoft muscling in with a sawn off version of Windows but only on a cut-down H/W spec which prevented Linux showing what it could do. Given that the vendors were generally PC makers as well MS had some arm-twisting ability. A mobile maker with no place in the Windows market wouldn't be in that position.

OTOH the big vendors have conditioned users into expecting some sort of cloud service. A service that doesn't pay for itself by treating the user as the product is one that the user would need to pay a sub for. Could a service (?NextCloud) be sold to users on this basis? Maybe there'd be resistance to buying a piece of kit and then adding on a monthly charge for some additional service.

Mobiles have got users used to the idea of renting a device as part of a service for which the charge itself is accepted.

One charge which users do accept is their ISP. Is there scope for a device which is provided as part of an enhanced ISP package which also includes storage?

Users also expect a 3rd party app store Most distros have a repository facility which could easily support that.

Re: “Because without users, your program is pointless..."

"Linux's visibility frankly sucks and most who a 'nix are completely unaware of it (MacOS, iOS, Android, ChromeOS)."

Let's bear in mind that two out of that list are actually Linux. Maybe the important factor is that it's widely used even if the Linux or Unix label is hidden on the inside.

"So... I discover a TOTAL lack of authorisation and type-checking on the backend API methods?"

You raise a bug report and get it fixed instead of trying to hide the problems.

Re: “Because without users, your program is pointless..."

"Sadly, that is one truth most *nix people still don't grep to this day."

I'd like to disagree with you on the basis that most Unix folk do grok it because historically Unix was developed by people who wanted to use it. But while the "still ...to this day" is the wrong way to look at it there are some damn peculiar un-Unixy people coming into Linux these days. Whilst I disagree with your historical perspective you have a point about the situation as it is now.

Re: What?

"I doubt that an ill-conceived feature exists in the kernel."

"If it DOES then Linus would swear at HIMSELF."

I wouldn't go quite as far as that.

Some Via processors allow processor throttling and some don't. Googling a log message from one that didn't all I found was a comment from Linus saying that the worst that could happen was that it would just write a message to the log. It did. About once a second.

"If it DOES then Linus would swear at HIMSELF."

I take it that his comment about "What moron let that in" was just that when it was discovered that an early file system was letting stuff sit in buffers for far too long without being flushed to disk when memory capacities increased.

"But then you hit Trolley Problem territory where you CAN'T have both, because of stuff like true zero-day vulnerabilities which are UNKNOWN bugs that are being ACTIVELY exploited."

I'm not sure how you drag the Trolley Problem into it and am utterly uninterested to find out because what you're banging on about isn't the subject of Linus's post and no amount of Bob capitals will change that. It doesn't concern bugs which are unknown.

It concerns bugs which are known because security researchers found them and submitted patches which attempt to treat the symptoms (by amputation, as it were) instead of either submitting a patch to fix the bug or raising a bug report for someone else to fix it. To the extent that it takes up time to fend them off these guys become part of the problem, not the solution.

BTW, if a bug is completely unknown it can't be actively exploited because nobody knows it to exploit it.

" If your operations can't continue without being seriously vulnerable, what you REALLY need is a Plan B."

Which brings us back to Linus's post: his Plan B - or, really, just Plan - is to fix the bug.

"The problem, though, is how do you KNOW the bug isn't already known elsewhere?"

As you like posing hypotheticals here's one for you: There's a bug in the OS that runs your intensive care monitoring system which could lead to it being pwned. Shall we shut it down, just to be safe?

"The problem here is the delay between it being actively exploited and KNOWING it's being actively exploited"

No, the problem is submitters providing code to treat the possible symptoms rather than cure the disease - or, if they don't know how, telling someone who does.

"temporarily disabling something to ensure that it can't be exploited, while a full fix is being developed, is a perfectly acceptable security approach"

Disabling in instead of fixing it isn't. What was stopping the submitters of sending in patch to fix the problem instead of hiding it?

"they're unlikely to be reported if no-one can run the affected code."

Except they could be reported by security researchers who think it better to cure the symptoms instead.

"Which would you rather have: a system that doesn't work or can't be trusted?"

It's a false dichotomy. The effort that goes into the break it now fix should go into the fix it properly fix. What I want, and which I expect Linus to provide, because of this approach, is a system that works and can be trusted.

"So why is it right when Linus says effectively the same thing?"

Linus isn't saying the same thing. What he's saying is fix the problem instead of hiding it.

AFAICS what's happening is that the security researchers are sending in patches which will throw an error if a dubious bit of code is hit even if it wouldn't cause a problem in that instance. They're then expecting him to incorporate that code in the kernel tree for the next release.

What he wants is that the code itself is fixed. That can then be backported into older kernel versions* (that, of course, could also be done with the just kill it fix). However the effort that goes into the just kill it patch could either be put into a proper fix by the researcher or, if that's too difficult, into a proper bug report so it can be fixed. Either fix is likely to go into the same kernel release cycle anyway and it's vastly preferable that it's a real fix. If he allowed just kill it fixes in the real fixes are likely to be delayed.

* Linux distributions don't always run the same kernel version. These appeal to different types of user.

Production systems tend to be very conservative with LTS vernel versions and only security fixes made available as kernel updates. Consistency of operation is highly valued.

More adventurous distros exist for those who must have the latest, greatest, coolest toys. These value novelty over consistency and can expect breakages from one release to the next. A release will have the latest kernel available at the time of packaging.

Users who want to test new stuff - equivalent to the Windows Insider Fast Ring can either go for a bleeding edge distro or install RC kernels in other distros.

"But even so; any user who cares about the sanctity of their data probably agrees."

What if the crash the system approach leaves the user with corrupt data?

The effort should go into fixing the root problem.

"What do you do when you biggest issue is PEBCAK?"

The kernel hardening approach would seem to be switching off the computer and removing the keyboard. And maybe the chair.

"I'm not sure what you take from the article but maybe you should read the previous article as well to get some understanding."

Even better, go and read the actual post.

Seek 'passion' and tech skills will follow, say recruiting security chiefs

The passionate people will not only learn the task at hand and deliver on time, they will read more on the train home, they will go home and play with the technology in their own time, evenings and weekends, they will step outside the remit to learn the "satellite skills" too.

But how many would describe themselves as "passionate"? Or treat a job advert that specifies it as anything but wanker-speak to be avoided?

Re: entrants should "demonstrate their passion"

Maybe a qualification in music is good enough if you have the passion. Or maybe it isn't.

In the meantime I suppose readers who are currently looking for an infosec consultancy will have been able to whittle down their short-list a little.

'Treat infosec fails like plane crashes' – but hopefully with less death and twisted metal

Re: Zero interest

"It'll be a cold day in hell when a statutory body is established with the power to shut down organisations"

I don't know if it's still there, and even if it is I doubt it's ever been used, but the DPA Mk I gave the regulator the power to order a business to stop processing data. It's a bit chilly today.

Re: Triumph of sensationalism over common sense

"Constantly chasing buzzwords they read rather than doing any analysis to understand what is really needed. Rather than aerospace grade discipline spreading to the world of IT what I see is the crap-of-the-week club taking over aerospace."

You do at least have the possibility of the existing regulators forcing that discipline onto the buzzword chasers.

Re: Infosec ≠ cyberattack

"that is more for blame attribution rather than learning lessons."

And usually looking for a driver to blame. It's just coincidence that so many of the drivers being blamed were at a particular road junction.

"Experian, Uber or Talk Talk"

These companies were not the victims of data breaches. The victims were those people whose details were leaked. Let's not forget that.

Re: "get it working, fix it later"

You've seen the article? Good. Now read it. Even better, when you get to the link to the original post click that and read what he actually wrote.

"there are no lessons to learn."

There's one: it can happen to us.

Dark fibre arts: Ofcom is determined to open up BT's network

"Of course none of this would be an issue if we still owned BT."

Of course it wouldn't. You'd be on the waiting list for your black telephone.

Re: Hardly leeching when the dark fibre was laid off the back of Government contracts.

"Maybe we need to bypass BT completely next time regarding full fibre FTTP rollout"

You really think anyone else is going to find the finance a roll out a full FTTP network instead of just the areas where there are easy returns?

Re: The consumer would like some of Ofcom's attention too

"No, I don't pay line rental for either."

And you really think your ISP isn't being billed for it and including it in your ISP bill?

Re: The consumer would like some of Ofcom's attention too

"These days, we should be plugging our telephone handsets into our routers."

And what does your router plug into? If you think you shouldn't pay for that connection back to the ISP get it discontinued and see how well your internet service works.

"We're well passed the point where we need to replace the USO for phone service with a USO for broadband that includes VoIP."

The USO, AIUI, requires the phone service to continue to operate in the event of power failure. POTS does this by being powered down the line by UPSs at the switch. Your router isn't going to be powered over fibre. Even if this is dropped you still need a connection back to your ISP. That needs to be paid for. If you're not to be billed direct your ISP will be billed instead and pass the cost on to you. Neither your telco nor your ISP are charities dedicated to supplying you with a free connection.

Re: Seems bizarre to me...then I'll try and explain

As a public sector entity they had an un or under-funded pension scheme, but that "didn't matter" because like all public sector pensions, the cost would be stiffed to future tax payers.

You are right to lay the blame for the pension black hole at govts. door but not at that particular door. At one stage the fund was deemed to be in surplus and HMRC - or probably IR back then - ordered BT to take a contribution holiday. Over funding is considered to be a form of tax evasion.

As all state pensions, including Civil Service pensions, are run as a Ponzi scheme the tax authorities don't really grok the extreme long term nature of pensions funds. The valuation of a pension fund is based on what it would cost to turn the liabilities into annuities and this is based on interest rates. Annuities are also based on life expectancies and increases in those need to be allowed for when looking to the long term.

What's not taken into consideration is that interest rates can go down as well as up. So when interest rates went down and stayed down as a result of a financial bubble, for which Treasury policy and their sometime political head Brown must accept some responsibility, the valuation on which the taxman's decision was based was shown to be wildly optimistic. Increased life expectancy has further hit annuity rates. In consequence BT is committed to making large contributions trying to catch up. It's not simply a matter of paying what it wasn't allowed to pay before because the fund has lost any stock market and income gains from the contributions that weren't made back then and that also has to be covered.

Another factor was the withdrawal of pension funds tax relief on dividends*, another of Brown's bright ideas. The dividends contribute to growth of the funds and this contribution was cut by removal of the tax relief. It clearly amounted to taxing the future and that future is here. It did a lot of damage to pension funds in general, not just BT's, and is one reason why there are few defined benefits schemes left.

As things stand the best we can hope for is that as interest rates rise the annuities will offer better prospects and the hole will be at least partly dealt with due to that.

* I thought then, and still think, that the pension funds were culpably supine back then. They had offered projections of future value based on the tax regime as it then was. When the regime altered they should have presented members with valuations which showed the difference between what was now projected and what would have been projected under the old legislation if only to cover their own backs and explain why things were looking less rosy. The fact that it might have put political pressure on Brown by exposing the long term consequences of his actions would, of course, have been a fortunate by-product. I notice reports suggesting that the recent budget has sneaked in another technical looking change that will affect some saving schemes in the long run. The Treasury got away with in 20 years ago, why would they not expect to succeed again?

Re: The consumer would like some of Ofcom's attention too

"Consumers are still being forced to pay for old-style land lines"

No problem. Just get your land line discontinued. I'm sure your ISP will find some other way of connecting you.

AFAICS the situation is this:

For reasons of promoting competition BT was shut out of cable provision for years. When it became clear that the competitive situation wasn't going to deliver anything like a nationwide service once the cherry-picking was done BT was allowed in and started the much bigger investment of building a much wider FTTC network. Being an experienced telecoms company they laid capacity for expansion; much of the cost is in all the field operations so including the spare capacity now is a relatively small investment compared to what it would cost to do it later.

Now everyone who didn't make such investments in the past and don't want to do so now or in the future want to be able to leech off BT's investment. And if that happens then at some future point when BT needs the capacity that they laid but no longer have and thus fails to provide some service whose fault will it be? BT's!

But infrastructure builders, such as Virgin Media and CityFibre, are less keen on the idea. "They have invested heavily in fibre, and concerned that opening up dark fibre would send the wrong message as it undermines the investment case for rolling out more fibre. It is also arguably at odds with Ofcom's position that it wants to incentivise more fibre investment,"

Maybe. But maybe their objection is that what's source for the goose is source for the gander. If BT's fibre is to be opened up for all comers the same argument can be applied to theirs.

Plans to thwack Official Secrets Acts smacked: Journo-gagging reform postponed

Re: " nothing less than a threat to Britain's free press and thus its democracy"."

"the free press"

Free press? Just check the ownership.

The postponement might simply be intended to kick it down the road until May can, as she hopes, wriggle out of the ECHR and the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

UK spy court ruled immune from judicial review – for now

" RIPA itself was brought in because it was feared that the previous legal basis for surveillance wouldn't stand up in the face of the Human Rights Act. Rinse and repeat."

They probably have a few more in the filing cabinet ready to be pressed into service as required.

This trick of replacing the legislation as soon as it receives what looks like a serious challenge seems to be a source of endless wriggle room.

Activist investor rages at Mellanox for dismissing Marvell's advances

"This activist has been involved with Yahoo! and helped precipitate CEO Marissa Mayer's departure.

So not all bad I think you want to say?"

Not good considering how long it took.

"Peter Field is a principal at Starboard Value and also a director of Marvell Technology Group"

That's good. I'd be upset to hear that he had a conflict of interest.

Boss made dirt list of minions' mistakes, kept his own rampage off it

Re: "Has your boss ever exempted themselves from rules imposed on others?"

I and my small team had adjacent desks. The conversation between us was fairly continuous - there may have been complaints from surrounding teams. One year I got a bad report for not holding meetings with my team. This was written by my line manager who never held such meetings with me and countersigned by his manager who also never held such meetings with me. Do as I say!

Re: Fragile. Very fragile.

"Someone came in at that point and stopped him before he fried himself."

There's always a spoilsport.

A certain millennial turned 30 recently: Welcome to middle age, Microsoft Excel v2

Re: Excel drives me nuts

"pretty counter-intuitive considering how copy-paste usually behaves."

But not how you'd want it to behave in a spreadsheet. OO & LO also have dynamic pasting.

"The million-row excel file that should have been moved into Access fifteen years ago"

And to a proper database server 14 years and 11 months ago.

Re: Smartware

"It included a database application"

The company was bought by Informix for no good reason except that their (Informix's) then management suffered from a lack of BOFH and openable windows in their offices. They did some work to use Informix as a back end. But only as a back end to the spreadsheet.

Back when Excel was introduced Smartware was the king, at leas for the PC users where I worked back then. It was an integrated office suite in the same way that MS Office, OO and LO are but for DOS. It never made it into the Windows era, at least not in any timely fashion.

Another toothless wonder? Why the UK.gov's data ethics centre needs clout

Re: We need something better than utilitarianism

"'Data Science Ethical Framework' [1], a document which betrays not the slightest understanding of ethics, is ethics-free and provides no framework whatever, ethical or otherwise."

The difficult bit was got rid of in the title. It sounds like a very competent piece of work.

At least it's from the Ministry of Fun and not the Home Office. That's a start.

156K spam text-sending firm to ICO: It wasn't us, Commissioner

"The ICO needs to get real about the size of it's fines and should pursue criminal trials against the directors of the companies too."

The ICO has to operate within the limits that the law allows. One aspect of fines is how cooperative the company is - a company that admits the offence will be fined less for example. In the case of this company it sounds as if there might be scope for increasing the fine. With any luck they'll take their appeal to court.

"Its legal team then mounted a defence on the grounds that Hamilton had not been the instigator of the messages (despite stating previously that they had ordered them)"

Shifting your ground like that is soooo convincing.

Forget Sesame Street, scientists pretty much watched Big Bird evolve on Galápagos island

"in order to be considered a different species, the most important factor was cross-fertility, not mating habits."

What TFA didn't say is that the different song is a factor in mating habits. The two lots of finches don't recognise each other as being the same species. If the Big Bird species survives there'll eventually be sufficient genetic drift to break cross-fertility even if it technically exists at present.

Hybridisation has been recorded as a factor in speciation before, e.g. Spartina anglica.

Deciding whether two things are a separate species are not is a black art. Taxonomists can be regarded as two separate species, lumpers and splitters or as two sub-species of Homo sapiens.

Fujitsu imagines adjusting your rear view mirror for better hearing

Re: Neat technology, but...

"If there are other people in the car, they *should* be making/receiving the phone call instead of the driver."

If use of the hands-free distracts the driver then listening to one end of the call, telling the passenger what to say or even conversing with the passenger when not on a call is likely to be at least as distracting.