Re:Zoom has a signed binary that runs any unsigned script
by bitwize on Wednesday April 01, 2020 @09:27AM
(#22748260)
Because it's not the 1980s anymore, and the thinking around security is different today. Running arbitrary code was mostly fine on 8- and 16-bit micros not connected to a global network, but today we need some sort of attestation that the code we run is trustworthy, otherwise it must be assumed not trustworthy. Code signing plus whitelisting -- the App Store model -- is one of the easiest ways to provide some degree of assurance of a program's trustworthiness.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Zoom has a signed binary that runs any unsigned script
by ookdatnog on Wednesday April 01, 2020 @06:18PM
(#22754089)
I'm not arguing against whitelisting/curation. I'm arguing against forbidding your users to install anything that's not on the whitelist.
I find it really shocking that "it is ok for a single entity to decide which software you can run on a device you own, with no accountability whatsoever", is now apparently a mainstream opinion on a tech forum. And more disturbingly, you make your case by arguing against the very notion of broadly-available general-purpose computing.