Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ileonichwiesz 14 days ago
I don’t think the analogy was the issue. What does it mean for a system to be so transparent that it’s obvious when it’s compromised?
4 comments

What I mean can be shown with an example:

Let’s say first that we know (some) users will inevitably agree to let malware compromise their system, no matter the popup or protections

A compromised system that’s transparent:

- Has only one way an executable can be started and, being designed as a “salt flat”, it’s easy to read

- Exposes all I/O and all network requests (to admins), regardless of driver abstractions

In this case, even a young enthusiast can look at a system and immediately see that it’s compromised, remove it’s ability to start or do work, and likely remove it from the system entirely.

The inspiration for this approach is a backlash against the absolute glut of places to hide in current user-focused systems. From multiple startup options, to services, to drivers, and in to the “hidden from the admin” executables that can be compromised it’s an ever-worsening problem that erodes user’s ability to keep their own system secure

That what apps have permission to access/record what at what times they use it, shouldn't be hidden or scaterred across several Settings panels.
I can’t speak for the ancestor, but I think making every screen recording app prominently visible in the status bar would fit the bill.
I was thinking it would even go so far as to make the background red if it failed some heuristics.