It IS, though. SmartScreen on Windows doesn't check binaries created on the same machine, but you'll get flagged if you move the untrusted binary to another machine you own.
Note that SmartScreen has an UI that lets you bypass it without having to disable it system wide, and has a sane timeout (I believe 30 seconds) after which it just pops up a dialogue box telling you that it can't check the binary, allowing you to continue.
What the hell? You have to wait 30 seconds before you can run unsigned code on Windows without calling home to Microsoft about it? How is that considered sane? (I mean, forking on windows is slow but it's not that slow.)
How do people (and corporations! Especially ones sensitive to sharing IP!) put up with this stuff?!
Unless this is a 2004 feature, it does block binaries compiled on the same machine. Not very fun if you are compiling stuff repeatedly with a couple of second wait-times when running the binary.
I'm not sure what they call it, but Windows does get in the way for things you compile on your own machine. I compiled the JuicyPotato exploit and tried to copy it to another local folder and got error 0x800700E1 and the EXE went missing.
That's Defender behavior -- you'll want to disable antivirus before building viruses :)
Defender is a traditional hueristic-based AV with on-disk and live load scanning and an offline database. SmartScreen is a reputation-based (certs + "how many people ran this") checker, and is much more visible. Win10 runs both.
This is a big conceit everyone holds - that Linux will be an acceptable substitute for MacOS. To be perfectly honest, if Apple shut down their Macbook factories and got out of the computer game entirely, and everyone flocked to Linux, it would be several painful years before Linux would be as usable as MacOS is today.
This is why I try out Linux every few years, and file lots of bug reports when I run into issues (mostly in applications - the core Linux kernel is solid). I've even contributed code to Linux apps that I don't intend to use right now.
I guess this is where the disagreements about usability on Linux come from. I've been using Linux based OSes since I was a child and IME when you run into brokenness it's almost always the user space (often something flashy from gnome or kde or occasionally freedesktop.org.)
Most things are more than doable on Linux but often you're choosing between stuff that works and stuff that looks pretty.
I've gotten quite good at recognizing crosswalks, fire hydrants, chimneys and the like. Though I refuse to identify that one mailbox as a "parking meter" even if it means another trial to prove my humanity. Users of the platform get treated as spammers already.
I don't doubt it. At least on non-server machines. They might not even do it intentionally. When every new machine manufactured in the last 20 years has some kind of secure boot system that prevents "unauthorised" operating systems from being installed, what then? Are you just going to keep your laptop from 20 years ago?
Mentally I'm there. But in terms of convenience I'm not. Thankfully my entire workflow has been done with OSS compatible with linux in mind so switching over is little more than an inconvenience for me. It all started because I couldn't use specific software in my workflow with linux...even if I paid for it. So then I started looking for good OSS alternatives and now I've basically become OS agnostic.
It IS, though. SmartScreen on Windows doesn't check binaries created on the same machine, but you'll get flagged if you move the untrusted binary to another machine you own.
Note that SmartScreen has an UI that lets you bypass it without having to disable it system wide, and has a sane timeout (I believe 30 seconds) after which it just pops up a dialogue box telling you that it can't check the binary, allowing you to continue.
>has a sane timeout (I believe 30 seconds)
What the hell? You have to wait 30 seconds before you can run unsigned code on Windows without calling home to Microsoft about it? How is that considered sane? (I mean, forking on windows is slow but it's not that slow.)
How do people (and corporations! Especially ones sensitive to sharing IP!) put up with this stuff?!
10 replies →
Unless this is a 2004 feature, it does block binaries compiled on the same machine. Not very fun if you are compiling stuff repeatedly with a couple of second wait-times when running the binary.
I'm not sure what they call it, but Windows does get in the way for things you compile on your own machine. I compiled the JuicyPotato exploit and tried to copy it to another local folder and got error 0x800700E1 and the EXE went missing.
That's Defender behavior -- you'll want to disable antivirus before building viruses :)
Defender is a traditional hueristic-based AV with on-disk and live load scanning and an offline database. SmartScreen is a reputation-based (certs + "how many people ran this") checker, and is much more visible. Win10 runs both.
1 reply →
Unsure if this is new, but as recently as September 2020, Windows definitely SmartScreen'ed an executable created on the same machine.
This is a big conceit everyone holds - that Linux will be an acceptable substitute for MacOS. To be perfectly honest, if Apple shut down their Macbook factories and got out of the computer game entirely, and everyone flocked to Linux, it would be several painful years before Linux would be as usable as MacOS is today.
This is why I try out Linux every few years, and file lots of bug reports when I run into issues (mostly in applications - the core Linux kernel is solid). I've even contributed code to Linux apps that I don't intend to use right now.
I guess this is where the disagreements about usability on Linux come from. I've been using Linux based OSes since I was a child and IME when you run into brokenness it's almost always the user space (often something flashy from gnome or kde or occasionally freedesktop.org.)
Most things are more than doable on Linux but often you're choosing between stuff that works and stuff that looks pretty.
By then it will be too late
I highly doubt corporate interests could eliminate linux. It just will be very difficult to use though no doubt.
I've gotten quite good at recognizing crosswalks, fire hydrants, chimneys and the like. Though I refuse to identify that one mailbox as a "parking meter" even if it means another trial to prove my humanity. Users of the platform get treated as spammers already.
5 replies →
I don't doubt it. At least on non-server machines. They might not even do it intentionally. When every new machine manufactured in the last 20 years has some kind of secure boot system that prevents "unauthorised" operating systems from being installed, what then? Are you just going to keep your laptop from 20 years ago?
Can you elaborate?
I’m slowly transitioning as competently as I can.
Mentally I'm there. But in terms of convenience I'm not. Thankfully my entire workflow has been done with OSS compatible with linux in mind so switching over is little more than an inconvenience for me. It all started because I couldn't use specific software in my workflow with linux...even if I paid for it. So then I started looking for good OSS alternatives and now I've basically become OS agnostic.
Are you sure? It's happening piece by piece so that its preferable for most people to bear one more bad thing than bear the cost of switching.
I will begin programming in C when the day comes to my switch as well.