Assuming there isn't something that prevents the boot image from being replaced. See my other, more extensive, comment in this thread.

Don't be condescending. I'm not saying rebooting is a magic anything.

Whether or not this matters depends on the threat model and why the attacker is interested in patching the kernel. For example, one purpose would be to disable other kernel security features, such as SELinux, or dm-verity. Most SELinux rules are configured and the configuration can be altered by root, but some are compiled into the kernel and can only be modified by modifying the kernel. Altering the persistent kernel image may not be possible for a variety of reasons (read-only media, SecureBoot, etc.). In addition, in security-sensitive and mission-critical contexts an unexpected reboot may well be noticed.

I don't understand your assertion about SecureBoot. Are you referring to some known vulnerability of some particular secure boot system? Given a decent implementation of secure/verified boot, an attacker should not be able to convince the system to boot a modified kernel image, which means that run-time modification of the kernel is the only option if the attacker needs to bypass some kernel security enforcement.

In general, the security model of a high-security Linux system assumes that the kernel is more trustworthy than root. The ability for root to modify the running kernel invalidates this assumption, which most definitely is a security issue.

In the context of a system without mandatory access controls there may not be any reason to care, since once an attacker has obtained root there probably isn't any limit to what he can do.

Users who are stuck using browsers that are incapable of applying more up-to-date ciphers are nowhere close to the majority. They're over an order of magnitude away from being the majority, in fact.

Sure, if your concern is error, rather than malice. An attacker who gains root could use this to dynamically patch a backdoor into the running kernel. Rebooting the machine would potentially enable someone to notice.

As another poster noted, though, you can already dynamically patch the kernel for malicious purposes by loading a malicious module, assuming that hasn't been disabled. In contexts where security is crucial, I would disable both dynamic module loading and run-time patching.

The GP wasn't suggesting that excessive data was handed over, he said that an NSL could be used to demand installation of a backdoor. If I were a vendor, even one who really wanted to be cooperative, I'd balk at that, because the chances of something like a backdoor being discovered are too high. It would be actively sabotaging my customers, and not just to the NSA... a backdoor can't distinguish between users, it lets in anyone who figures it out. And, of course, if the existence of the backdoor were published it would do serious damage to my business.

Even companies who want to cooperate are going to be reluctant to do potentially business-destroying favors for the government. There would be a great deal of incentive to fall back on the law and refuse on the grounds that the law doesn't authorize such requests.

I'm skeptical that an Android device would survive running flat out for two years to crack a PIN. The heat and battery life issues I experienced when I tested it demonstrate clearly that mobile devices simply aren't designed to run full-speed 24x7.

Also, it should be pointed out that the attack I described is far from easy to carry out. Among other things, it requires dumping the contents of flash, which basically requires removing the flash chips from the mainboard without damaging it, then either putting the flash chips back or installing new flash, then the device must be unlocked, a custom, hostile OS flashed, and finally the attacker can start the multi-year process.

Note that the 630-day figure I cited is on average. It would take twice that long for a guaranteed break.

Finally, if you add one more character to your passcode (7-character alphanumeric), the crack time jumps from 630 days on average to 124 years.

I agree that Lollipop FDE still needs some improvement, but it's already quite good.

Wow, way to not link to a study, but rather a Smithsonian blog talking about a Wordpress blog talking about a study. You clearly love your primary sources!

FYI, the study is just one of many. The study itself cites others, including:

20,000 birds/yr (Sovacool, 2012)
10,000–40,000 birds/yr (Erickson et al., 2001 and Manville, 2005)
20,000–40,000 birds/yr (Erickson et al., 2005)
440,000 (Manville, 2009)
573,000 (Smallwood, 2013).

The latter two include lattice towers, which are largely being decommissioned as unsafe to birds.

But hey, having varied numbers clearly means that if you can find a blog linking to another blog linking to a study that shows high numbers (among many different studies), then clearly the GP is "plain wrong", right?

And yes, even if we go with your choice study's mean of 234,012 annual bird deaths, that's still orders of magnitude less than many other types of human activities.

Different situations call for different responses. It sounds like he made the appropriate response for this situation, but suggesting that "not feeding the trolls" is never the appropriate response is simply misguided. Quick examples from my own life, which I'd imagine are similar to what most of us have dealt with at some time or another...

Are they in it for the fun? Then make it boring as hell. Works great for 90% of Internet trolls. When I dealt with some run-of-the-mill bullying at a new junior high I moved to, simply not giving them any satisfaction was enough to make the bullying dry up in short order. Easy.

Are they doing it to exert control? Then show them they don't have control. The one and only time I was ever hit by someone, it was because he was using force in an effort to intimidate me since it had worked with others in getting him his way. Simply standing up after the hit, looking him square in the eye, and asking, "Are you done now?" before going back to my business was enough to keep him from ever bothering me again, since he didn't have a clue how to deal with me. In fact, we became friends after that, and to the best of my knowledge, mine was the last case of him attempting to bully anyone.

Are they taking because they can? Remind them of the consequences. When I had some drunk neighbors who let their party with underage students turn into an hour-long competitive shouting match (that's not a euphemism for them arguing loudly...they were actually shouting at each other for an hour to see who could do it loudest), I politely asked them at 2:30 AM to take it inside. They refused (and said some other not-nice things, as you might imagine). A quick noise complaint (I didn't mention the underage aspect to the cops) dealt with the problem and ensured it never came up again, since it helped them to see just how close they had come to a set of costly citations they couldn't afford.

There are other types of trolls/bullies/jerks out there, and there are numerous additional responses that may be necessary for dealing with them. Among those is responding in kind, but it is by no means the "only way", as you make it out to be.

I have serious fears that we're facing an unduly high risk of a major wind spill here. :(

About 5600 lines. However, because it was a glorified case statement, you were really only debugging a single case at a time, each of which was about the length of a sane function, so splitting it into functions would do little to improve readability. I like to trot out that example to terrify people, but the function itself was really quite sane and easy to maintain.

You did, however, have to fully understand the state machine as a whole, which in total was almost twenty kloc, had almost 200 instance variables in the state object, and leaned heavily on a tree object with about 30 instance variables. That's the point at which most people's heads exploded.

Either way, 4,500 lines is the size of a fairly straightforward iOS app. Most folks can dig into that and figure out enough to maintain it without spending a huge amount of time, even if the organization isn't ideal. When you hit tens of thousands of lines, that's where you have to start thinking about how you organize it and document it, because with such large projects, if you jump into the middle without a complete picture, you're likely to be hopelessly lost.

yeah....
if you witness a murder or other illegal acts, your contract binding you to silence loses all weight.

as for the drone strike, it wasnt a happy coincidence, it was a targeted assassination of an individual, done in the full knowledge of his citizenship, and outside of any active combat.

Make no mistake: the guy WAS a terrorist. i'll even say he absolutely deserved to die.

But that doesnt give you, the President, or anyone else the power to simply bypass the Constitution, Due Process, and the basic rights granted to all American Citizens, including those we'd very much like to see dead. The very idea should turn the stomach of every American citizen.

The GOP is so hopped up fighting mad and ready to impeach Obama?
THIS IS WHAT THEY SHOULD USE.

But they don't.
And they won't.
Because they actually support the doctrine.

As I've said before: Most of the complaints of the GOP and Fox are manufactured bullshit meant for mass consumption of their voting base.
The real issues, the real problems that should be held against the President, like this one, they don't actually care about and/or actively support.

Because whistleblower protections in this country in general, and particularly under this president, are a joke.

That's why.

Your argument would carry more weight if the government who'd be trying Snowden weren't the same one he outed for violating its own laws, with the active collaboration of its judicial branch. Not to mention all of the recent fully-public sidestepping of due process for hundreds of other enemy combatants. Oh, and the torture, including of US citizens. And... do I really need to go on?

Snowden has extremely good reason to be skeptical of the fairness of a trial... or if he'd even get a real trial.