Hacker News Reader

Comment by dtech | Hacker News Reader

I don't see what this has to much do with MS. A bad proprietary kernel module can crash any OS.

An immutable OS can be set up to revert to the previous version if a change causes a boot failure. Or even a COW filesystem with snapshots when changes are applied. Hell, Microsoft's own "System Restore" capability could do this, if MS provided default-on support for creating system restore points automatically when system files are changed & restoring after boot failures.

Right, an OS completely crashing like this is the fault of the OS and the problematic code.

An OS should be really resistant to this kind of things.

What's funny to me is that in college we had our computer lab set up such that every computer could be quickly reverted to a good working state just by rebooting. Every boot was from a static known good image, and any changes made while the computer was on were just stored as an overlay on a separate disk. People installed all manner of software that crashed the machines, but they always came back up. To make any lasting changes to the machine you had to have a physical key. So with the right kind of paranoia you can build systems that are resilient to any harmful changes.

What other OS besides recent CoreOS/Silverblue/etc does this auto-restore of system files automatically?

No other OS forces an auto-restart.

Well, not the OS, per se, but macos updating mechanisms have auto-restart path, and I imagine any Linux update that touches the kernel can be configured in that way too. It's more the admin's decision then OS's but on all common systems auto-restart is part of the menu too.

No restart was needed to cause this crash. As soon as Falcon downloads the updated .sys file ... BOOM.

MS could've leaned more towards user-space kernel drivers though. Apple has been going in that direction for a while and I haven't seem much of that (if anything) coming from MS.

That would have prevented a bad driver from taking down a device.

Well we all know where Microsoft is in security… even the government acknowledges it’s terrible

Apple created their own filesystem to make this possible.

The system volume is signed by Apple. If the signature on boot doesn't match, it won't boot.

When the system is booted, it's in read-only mode, no way to write anything to it.

If you bork it, you can simply reinstall macOS in place, without any data/application loss at all.

Of course, if you're a tinkerer, you can disable both, the SIP, and the signature validation, but that cannot be done from user-space. You'll need to boot into recovery mode to achieve that.

I don't think there's anything in NTFS or REFS that would allow for this approach. Especially when you account for the wide variety of setups on which an NTFS partition might sit on. With MBR, you're just SOL instantly.

Apple hardware on the other hand has been EFI (GPT) only for at least 15 years.

I blame Microsoft in the larger sense; they still allow kernel extensions for use cases that Apple has shown could be moved outside the kernel.

I don’t know the specifics of this case, but formal verification of machine code is an option. Sure it’s hard and doesn’t scale well but if it’s required then vendors will learn to make smaller kernel modules.

If something cannot be formally verified at the machine code level there should be a controls level verification where vendors demonstrate they have a process in place to achieving correctness by construction.

Driver devs can be quite sloppy and copy paste bad code from the internet, in the machine code Microsoft can detect specific instances of known copy and pasted code and knows how to patch it. I know they did this for at least one common error. But if I was in the business of delivering an OS I want people to rely on my OS this stuff formal verification at some level would be table stakes.

I thought Microsoft did use formal verification for kernel-mode drivers and that this was supposed to be impossible. Is it only for their first-party code?

I wasn’t privy to the extent it was used, if this was formally verified to be correct and still caused this problem then that really would be something. I’m guessing given the size and scope of an antivirus kernel module that they may have had to make an exception but then didn’t do enough controls checking.

No, I believe 3rd party driver developers must pass Hardware Lab Kit testing for their drivers to be properly signed. This testing includes a suite of Driver Verifier passes that are done, but this is not formal verification in the mathematical sense of the term.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com