Hacker News Reader

Comment by rm_-rf_slash | Hacker News Reader

I'm surprised this isn't getting much attention here.

There really isn't a technological solution for class breaks. Go big and you replace one kind of class break with another (a top-tier security system for hotel card readers just focuses the attacks on that system). Go small and it isn't cost effective or plausible at scale (everybody install gentoo! Compile your own kernels!).

Honestly, I'm stumped. We rely on these systems more and more to squeeze out every bit of productivity we can get, but that only leaves us at the mercy of our systems.

Is it even possible to fix this kind of situation before it really turns on us, or are we doomed to suffer a cataclysm we cannot yet imagine?

View on HN

I think we can lower the risk of these kinds of attacks a lot by reducing the amount of "dangerous" code that runs on devices. There are several ways to do this: run stripped-down embedded OSes and software that only have the bare minimum functionality they need to do what they do, transition as much C/C++ code as possible to Rust, Haskell, Agda, or whatever other higher level language is suitable to the requirements of the application, and use containers/capabilities/sandboxes to restrict potentially unsafe code from interacting with the rest of the system in ways that aren't absolutely necessary to the application.

So, we do have some technical solutions that could greatly reduce the risk. I think the main barriers preventing these techniques from being used as widely as they should right now are that 1) secure and insecure products are basically indistinguishable to consumers, so there is little economic incentive on the part of product manufacturers to ensure their products are secure, 2) we have an entrenched programmer culture (especially in systems programming) that thinks the solution is to "be more careful" and "don't hire dumb programmers", and 3) we have a whole lot of really complicated C and C++ programs that work really well and people are happy with them whereas if you want to ship a product with, say, all of the code from the OS up written in Rust, you're sort of blazing your own trail and you'll have to write a lot of it yourself.

The cure is worse than the disease. But it's coming. It will come as a devastating one-two punch: the end of general purpose computing devices and the rise of a publicly-identified Internet.

The former will be phased in as countries legislate it. Legislators won't be concerned with the slippery slope between abacus and iphone, the courts will likely draw a distinction somewhere around anything north of "silicon-based electronics with the right resources for an IP stack". A few countries will be bastions of Free Computing, but many/most will draw up similar laws.

The latter will be held back by Metcalfe's Law until some near-global momentum can be built. It would likely take a simultaneous attack on many global corporations/political parties/beloved individuals, but it seems like that's just a matter of time. Faced with repeated attacks, the public won't accept "but we designed it that way intentionally" as valid.

Abandoning general purpose computing is too crazy, as it amounts to throwing away software. The anonymous internet is a dead-man walking, but silicon valley is as complicit in this as the government will be.

However, software engineering will change into a much more regulated environment. Writing software for the web will eventually become like writing software for the space shuttle: slow, rigorous and very expensive.

It will also kill the hacker culture, as hacking together a piece of software will become like hacking together a bridge: illegal.

IANAL but I assume that if I purchased a tract of land and built a bridge on it, I could create it as I please, given that I would be liable for damages should the bridge break and harm somebody on my property, not unlike a slip-and-fall.

I for one would prefer most vital software to be developed slowly and methodically. We insist on strict standards for our bridges and roads - why don't we do the same for our information infrastructure?

Move fast and break things can break people too.

I would prefer software infrastructure be developed rigorously as well, as I think would most people. But that will lead to regulations or at best, expensive insurance company mandated standards.

But before we celebrate its demise: the side effect will also be the same ones seen in the civil engineering world: creative ideas take decades to come into existence. As you mentioned in your other comment, there was a time when railroad building was exciting, and in that time, people died doing exciting engineering. Civil engineering tools are now orders of magnitude better than they were years ago, but there hasn't been an explosion in creative structures, even at the lowest level. I also think many of the perks (ie: salary) of the software engineering industry are intimately related to the 'move fast and break things' culture. When that leaves the industry, it may be less of a good riddance than you think.

This may be my perspective as an outsider though, I don't work in software. But I have considered making the jump to software engineering, because 'moving fast and break things' sounds fun.

Fundamentally we agree, but I'm a pessimist.

Also agreed, but I don't think the "boringification" of civil engineering is all that bad either. I met a civil engineer recently. He is a mundane but serious professional. He has no patience for the shiny objects that the real estate developers try to distract other people with. Codes are upheld and enforced.

It's easy to grumble about regulations until their reasons are forgotten. Then they get repealed and the problems come back. The mortgage crisis is a prime example.

I don't think this is such a bad future for software either. Much of my job writing software for higher education involves adhering to complex policies. These policies are necessary to remain FERPA/HIPAA compliant, which are necessary for their own reasons. Playing fast and loose is taking out a debt for an uncertain future.

The "boringification" of computers will bring us back to the 70s.

If we have to prove _everything_ on your computer, from your calculator or Pokemon, how much do you think a license of windows will cost? $250,000?

Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/Minix will be dead (no one to sponsor certification and then put it in the public).

Crazy "best-practices" (change passwords every couple days, password must include symbols, letters, numbers, upper-case and lower-case in a random order, but be no shorter or longer than eight characters)

Must have a full team of lawyers to prove that everything done fit the letter of the law, and that any hacks are not your responsibility

"Shinyness" is what allows you to have free VSCode and Atom.

Sure, I miss the 70s when you could get a text editor measured in bytes (but, btw, electron is probably more secure than 70s unix) but I definitely like the cost/convenience of modern software.

I wonder what's the programming equivalent of interior designer[1] or nail technician[2] and how much time until one will be required to spend a few thousand bucks and a couple of years in some bootcamp to be allowed to publish them.

[1] http://www.dopl.utah.gov/licensing/commercial_interior_desig...

[2] http://www.dopl.utah.gov/licensing/cosmetology_barbering.htm...

>how much time until one will be required to spend a few thousand bucks and a couple of years in some bootcamp to be allowed to publish them.

... risking anyway to end up in the "B Ark" ...

http://www.geoffwilkins.net/fragments/Adams.htm

(obligatory reference to Douglas Adams, nail technicians and interior designers are not so different from phone sanitizers and hairdressers)

> IANAL but I assume that if I purchased a tract of land and built a bridge on it, I could create it as I please, given that I would be liable for damages should the bridge break and harm somebody on my property, not unlike a slip-and-fall.

Depends on where you buy your land, most likely. If you buy in an unincorporated territory, you might get away with whatever if there are no county or state regulations. If you're buying in a city/town/village, you can expect that basically any construction project will be subject to code requirements and permitting. To get permitted in such a situation would typically require an appropriately engineered design with signoff from a civil PE.

> However, software engineering will change into a much more regulated environment. Writing software for the web will eventually become like writing software for the space shuttle: slow, rigorous and very expensive.

I wouldn't be totally pessimistic like this. Increases in regulation and quality standards will happen along with increases in programmer productivity as tools further improve. We're still living in the stone age of programming languages and system infrastructure.

Agreed. People usually aren't aware that the 19th century was a sprawling graveyard of industrial accidents and train derailments, often because the regulations introduced as a result of these tragedies have turned them into a distant memory for an older generation and a "grandpa story" as far as young-uns are concerned.

Most technological advancements go through a pioneer era, then a haphazard status quo, then government regulation.

See: aviation (ICAO, FAA), automobiles (WP.29 [1], NHTSA), wireless transmissions (ITU, FRC/FCC)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Forum_for_Harmonization_...

Or, it could bifurcate. Look at aviation. If you want to fly an airplane in the US, it needs to be something that has been approved by the government down to each nut, bolt and rivet. All onboard systems (mechanical, electrical, software) and every vendor providing them have undergone expensive and rigorous government certification, and you have documents showing it. You can't so much as change out a switch in the cockpit without going through an official approved service provider! But there's a totally separate "experimental" category carved out for people who want to build their own airplanes, where the rules are much more lax and there's far less oversight. As long as you keep good records and abide be some basic rules, you can pretty much build and fly whatever the hell you want. The major operating limitation is that you can't fly one for hire or carry people for compensation. By some great miracle, these separate, parallel tracks, certificated and experimental, co-exist successfully and planes aren't falling from the sky.

It may end up this way for computing: A "serious software" regime for most consumer- and business-purchased products, subject to slow, rigorous, expensive regulation, and a parallel "hobbyist" track for at-home, non-commercial hacking and making where anything goes.

As he said, we do have some experience with Class Breaks. Off the top of my head: Palm Pilots had a little button on the back to reset them. Chrome Books have a read-only OS/boot loader. Old software licensing dongles covered the chips with epoxy. We use VLANS to separate classes of traffic. x86 uses rings to separate classes of code. Firewalls and QOS systems separate classes of traffic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com