News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Memory Integrity Enforcement. Parent comment

Re:Memory Integrity Enforcement by saagarjha on Wednesday September 10, 2025 @03:34AM (#45194437)
Google did invest in MTE. In fact you linked to some of their investments that ended up trickling down to Android. The problem is actually shipping this is hard and Google was not able to do it. No, "some in the security community" being loud does not mean it is ready to ship. Google identified several problems that they were not able to solve and thus did not ship it generally.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Memory Integrity Enforcement by ignoramous on Saturday September 13, 2025 @11:16PM (#45237126)
> Google identified several problems that they were not able to solve and thus did not ship it generally.

My lament is, Google did not do enough as Apple has, in that the problems were worth solving (assuming FEAT_MTE4 is them solving those to productize MTE for security).

> "some in the security community" being loud

Think the GrapheneOS authors deserve more respect. They aren't merely "loud", they have shipped features that AOSP later incorporated.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Memory Integrity Enforcement by saagarjha on Monday September 15, 2025 @05:44AM (#45247869)
No, FEAT_MTE4 is just part of it. There's a bunch of implementation work that goes on top of it to make it perform well for consumer devices.
[ Parent | on HN ]