News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Hiding execution of unsigned code in Windows system threads by passivate on Wednesday January 13, 2021 @06:26PM (#25769463)
> But the general pattern nowadays is that people value the consistency over customisability.

Personally, I value both. I want all the modern so-called 'tamper proof' features that an OS has, but I also want myself to be in control of all of them. I am fine with switching them on so that only signed code is executed and let the OS maker handle certificate revocation and all that. But if I want to use it as a dev box, I also want the option to turn it off.

Ditto for customization - I want the ability to tweak and change tuning/configuration parameters for performance reasons, for productivity reasons, for aesthetic reasons, but I also want a 'force defaults' and/or disable customizations option for when I'm setting up the computer for a family member, etc.

Re:Hiding execution of unsigned code in Windows system threads by freeone3000 on Wednesday January 13, 2021 @07:04PM (#25769836)
Windows developers develop for Windows on Windows, including kernel developers. The guardrails are lowerable - you can disable SmartScreen, Protected Boot, even Kernel Driver Signing Verification. Nothing prevents you from making your system as insecure as you'd like
Re:Hiding execution of unsigned code in Windows system threads by SulfurHexaFluri on Wednesday January 13, 2021 @07:27PM (#25770060)
Yep, the point of this post seems to be to get full access without turning off the safeties because that will trip anti cheat software.
Re:Hiding execution of unsigned code in Windows system threads by passivate on Wednesday January 13, 2021 @07:06PM (#25769852)
Agreed, we can have both.