On 6/6/2011 10:32, clipka wrote:
> /Relying/ on the programs /obeying/ anything particular?

Yes, because the executable MSIL code is checked for correctness by code 
that has, in turn, been proven to be correct. Just as one example. Or 
because the kernel code is mathematically proven to be correct.

Of course, if you corrupt the hardware like in the Sony example, that's 
something rather beyond what I'd call "malware".

>  From what you write, it sounds like the inventors of that OS have never
> heard the term "malware" in their whole life.

It's Microsoft. I'm pretty sure they've heard of malware. Indeed, the whole 
point of designing it like they did is, for one thing, to keep malware from 
running. I'm pretty sure, for example, that there's no formal mathematical 
proof that keeps Linux, for example, from letting a process access memory 
belonging to another process. Nor is there a mechanism in place in most 
operating systems to restrict file access to only those files a program 
declares at compile time that it will access, or to keep a device driver 
from accessing arbitrary other device addresses, or to limit authorization 
based on which program did the authentication. Indeed, in the current 
incarnation, it's impossible to modify the collection of executable code 
without rebooting the machine; installing a program is the only way to 
modify what can be executed, and that in turn requires a reboot. (Altho I'm 
pretty sure that's merely a limitation, not a design intention.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message