Warp wrote:
> The OS should be designed in such way that it's just not possible.

The problem is people, really. You put in code that says "don't accept 
executables." Then you put in code that says "Hey, you downloaded this, do 
you really want to run it?" Then you put in code that says "Don't accept 
executables inside zip files."

If it went far enough, people would send out "here's a zip file with the 
password xyz. Unpack it with that password, rename hello.jpg to hello.exe, 
and run it to get an important message from your bank" and someone would do it.

>   Virus scanners are fighting the symptoms, not the fundamental problem.

True. And the symptom is that software is too complex for someone to know 
all its interactions in modern systems, in part because software doesn't 
come as a package. This is starting to change, but it's still not enforced. 
It's more of a convenience feature than a security feature.

If you said "Firefox can only run executable code that you downloaded with 
firefox and was signed by the firefox development key", you'd be golden. 
Unless, of course, it's an interpreter.

I think fundamentally you're up against the halting problem, and the more 
you lock down the system, the more people who *do* know what they're doing 
(or who want to do something regardless of whether they know what they're 
doing or not) will be annoyed.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message