Difference between revisions of "Talk:83Plus:BCALLs:52F9"
From WikiTI
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Isn't this kind of pointless? Aren't you unable to run progs/apps when they are disabled, therefore making this useless? [[User:Luby|Luby]] 13:26, 7 May 2008 (PDT) | Isn't this kind of pointless? Aren't you unable to run progs/apps when they are disabled, therefore making this useless? [[User:Luby|Luby]] 13:26, 7 May 2008 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Well, sure, if all apps and programs are disabled, then (in theory, at least) the user can't run arbitrary assembly code, but... (a) That's not the only possible situation -- you might have only a subset disabled. (b) Push-to-test doesn't delete or disable scripts (at least on 2.41) -- I don't know about Testguard, but there are probably bugs there as well that could be exploited. (c) If you wanted to -- I probably would if I had an 84+ and wanted to use 2.4x -- you could modify the OS to add a backdoor. And even if this entry point were "useless", would it not still be worth documenting? [[User:FloppusMaximus|FloppusMaximus]] 13:15, 8 May 2008 (PDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 12:15, 8 May 2008
Isn't this kind of pointless? Aren't you unable to run progs/apps when they are disabled, therefore making this useless? Luby 13:26, 7 May 2008 (PDT)
- Well, sure, if all apps and programs are disabled, then (in theory, at least) the user can't run arbitrary assembly code, but... (a) That's not the only possible situation -- you might have only a subset disabled. (b) Push-to-test doesn't delete or disable scripts (at least on 2.41) -- I don't know about Testguard, but there are probably bugs there as well that could be exploited. (c) If you wanted to -- I probably would if I had an 84+ and wanted to use 2.4x -- you could modify the OS to add a backdoor. And even if this entry point were "useless", would it not still be worth documenting? FloppusMaximus 13:15, 8 May 2008 (PDT)
