Really interested in the idea of dynamic hotpatching for software security.
This is fairly widespread at the OS layer, but I think there's opp for it to happen ubiquitously from the chip up.
The way that software has historically been built and distributed it is effectively impossible to keep things up to date.
eMudhra key gets leaked and now suddenly all your Electron apps have to update. A vuln happen in Go stdlib and suddenly thousands of independent binaries need updates. This is an impossible situation.
You need to be running something on the OS at the root layer that can hotpatch _all_ of the software above it. This implies a hierarchical system where a root layer hotpatches e.g., the JVM, which then hotpatches Rhino, which hotpatches a JS lib.
Centrally managed, instantly distributable, instantly revertable.
Greasemonkey for everything.
Who is working on this and can I invest?
This is fairly widespread at the OS layer, but I think there's opp for it to happen ubiquitously from the chip up.
The way that software has historically been built and distributed it is effectively impossible to keep things up to date.
eMudhra key gets leaked and now suddenly all your Electron apps have to update. A vuln happen in Go stdlib and suddenly thousands of independent binaries need updates. This is an impossible situation.
You need to be running something on the OS at the root layer that can hotpatch _all_ of the software above it. This implies a hierarchical system where a root layer hotpatches e.g., the JVM, which then hotpatches Rhino, which hotpatches a JS lib.
Centrally managed, instantly distributable, instantly revertable.
Greasemonkey for everything.
Who is working on this and can I invest?
9
0
5
970
My wife, looking over my shoulder at the demo:
It's good you have claude. No human could put up with this level of persnicketyness.
It's good you have claude. No human could put up with this level of persnicketyness.
4
0
23
1,761
Weird I was literally thinking this exact thing and going to tweet it this morning -
painful, but necessary. I think weirdly we will actually come out ahead here. All bugs are now visible, cannot rely on obscurity anymore. We will either have no working software, or software will largely work. The world depends on software so I think the latter is more like the truth.
I think we will be forced to come up with new approaches too. I'm not sure what they are, but feeling like just "more of same" approach to software security will not be sufficient. Perhaps it's just "throw lots of tokens at it", but I keep having this itchy feeling that there's more to it than that.
painful, but necessary. I think weirdly we will actually come out ahead here. All bugs are now visible, cannot rely on obscurity anymore. We will either have no working software, or software will largely work. The world depends on software so I think the latter is more like the truth.
I think we will be forced to come up with new approaches too. I'm not sure what they are, but feeling like just "more of same" approach to software security will not be sufficient. Perhaps it's just "throw lots of tokens at it", but I keep having this itchy feeling that there's more to it than that.
175% agree with this. we've just sped up the discovery of software which wasn't quite right all along.
3
0
21
2,194
Like to a close approximation, all the effort that was spent last year creating software needs to go into securing software next year.
0
0
0
298
What if the answer to AI unemployment isn't basic income, but a radically expanded patent system?
Here's a weekend idea for a new kind of capitalism -- one tweaked for the age of intellectual abundance...
Here's a weekend idea for a new kind of capitalism -- one tweaked for the age of intellectual abundance...
4
1
23
2,973
I don't want a world where a handful of companies do all the inventing and everyone else gets an allowance.
I want hundreds of millions of people competing to use AI to make life better, knowing that if they discover something valuable, they can profit from it. And I think that is actually a much better world for everyone, materially.
I want hundreds of millions of people competing to use AI to make life better, knowing that if they discover something valuable, they can profit from it. And I think that is actually a much better world for everyone, materially.
1
0
3
367