News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Microsoft didn’t sandbox Windows Defender, so I did by Kenji on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @01:46PM (#14912881)
"Performance reasons" meanwhile I kid you not when I say that the Antimalware Executable of Microsoft swallows about half my CPU performance when I am downloading, unzipping, executing files. They could have implemented their antivirus in JavaScript and it wouldn't have mattered.
Re:Microsoft didn’t sandbox Windows Defender, so I did by adzm on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @03:33PM (#14913843)
implemented in JavaScript... something like this?

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=12...

> The core component of MsMpEng responsible for scanning and analysis is called mpengine. Mpengine is a vast and complex attack surface, comprising of handlers for dozens of esoteric archive formats, executable packers and cryptors, full system emulators and interpreters for various architectures and languages, and so on. All of this code is accessible to remote attackers.

> NScript is the component of mpengine that evaluates any filesystem or network activity that looks like JavaScript. To be clear, this is an unsandboxed and highly privileged JavaScript interpreter that is used to evaluate untrusted code, by default on all modern Windows systems. This is as surprising as it sounds.

Re:Microsoft didn’t sandbox Windows Defender, so I did by digi_owl on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @05:06PM (#14914651)
Time we bring back the C64 design, with no internal storage?
Re:Microsoft didn’t sandbox Windows Defender, so I did by syrrim on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @08:04PM (#14915842)
And no networking.
Re:Microsoft didn’t sandbox Windows Defender, so I did by retox on Thursday August 03, 2017 @04:36AM (#14917932)
Try TempleOS, though a scamp from /g/ implemented a full network stack, along with video players, etc.
Re:Microsoft didn’t sandbox Windows Defender, so I did by digi_owl on Thursday August 03, 2017 @12:20PM (#14920932)
And thus the first shim was formed...
Re:Microsoft didn’t sandbox Windows Defender, so I did by okreallywtf on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @01:50PM (#14912920)
I had to create exclusions[1] for some stuff (mainly visual studio) because I had the same problem (mainly during builds).

[1] https://www.drivereasy.com/knowledge/antimalware-service-exe...

Re:Microsoft didn’t sandbox Windows Defender, so I did by londons_explore on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @05:11PM (#14914694)
I don't fully understand this - It isn't critical to virus scan files when reading or writing them. It's important to scan them between a write and a read.

That means many written files (which won't be read for a long time) can be scanned hours later.

Others can be checked for matching a "known good" hash whitelist which can be downloaded from the net. That should cover all kinds of files which are parts of software distributions etc.

That leaves very few files which really need real time scanning.

Re:Microsoft didn’t sandbox Windows Defender, so I did by palunon on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @11:06PM (#14916664)
Problem is, for example, if you compute checksums of many files after writing them...
Re:Microsoft didn’t sandbox Windows Defender, so I did by bitJericho on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @05:11PM (#14914693)
At the same time, it's miles better than AVG!