-4

Imagine we lived in a world where we'd never have to worry about modifying or deleting an important system file, where we'd be virtually immune to RAT's or viruses interfering with the operation of our computer, where operational concerns stemming from malicious remote tampering, modified registries and hair loss were a thing of nightmares past.

Here's a thought that's been revolving in my head since I been tackling a nasty boot issue lately.

We've seen how many issues there are with malicious intruders, viruses, even boot problems caused because some part of the HD boot-loader gets corrupted. It occurs to me all these issues wouldn't exist if the OS software was redesigned to be separate the physical HD hardware; the format most computers today use.

Why don't the guys who design computers and OS's put their heads together and make Operating Systems separate from the Hard Drive. We have multiple examples of OS's that run directly from USB, CD/DVD, even dual-booting; proving that you don't need a OS installed on the physical HD itself to make that computer work with one.

Rather, why not have an OS chip, one that can easily be replaced. It could even be separately updatable like we update firmware for a dvd player or portable device. While this would not remove the need for Antivirus or security software for the drive itself, placing the OS on a chip of its own would eliminate practically all of the operational problems that arise with software corruption; i.e. privacy problems of cookies and files remaining, mistaken writing over of system files, malicious modification of the operating software... ad continuum.

These kinds of basic concerns and operational modifications are what we tackle most in operating computers. Most our downtimes, hair-pulling and lost computing productivity stems from these systemic mash-ups, where either someone else or we ourselves do something that mess up the operational files needed to run our PC's properly.

It occurs to me, if we could remove the ability for modifying of the operational files by placing them separate from the Hard Drive on a chip of its own (which has already been done with other removable media and proven to work); people would save altogether millions of $$$ each year in costly diagnostics and OS repairs, while spending more time doing what we need and enjoy - all while helping stem rising rates of premature balding at the root!

So why is this not being done already? Does anyone see a problem with having the OS and critical files placed on a chip of its own rather than mixed up on that darn Hard Drive, where anyone potentially has access to the heart of your computer every time you connect to the Internet? Does it not make sense to place that heart out of reach? In principle at least it sounds like a good idea. Do you know a good reason why not? Please feel free to share your thoughts on this hair-raising concept.

10
  • 2
    So that we never can correct errors, install new devices or new software, increase our capabilities, repair compromised features or replace obsolete ones? Oct 5, 2015 at 13:29
  • 2
    There are already solutions that implement what you describe. Deep Freeze is one such example. As for the rest of your idea, the reason it isn't done, is because there isn't a consumer demand for it.
    – Ramhound
    Oct 5, 2015 at 13:32
  • ahem* @MariusMatutiae did you see the part where I said about the chip being updateable? Seperate but equal, putting operational files out of reach of internet intruders, but in a format we can upgrade at will just like we upgrade firmware... on a chip of it's own.
    – xCare
    Oct 5, 2015 at 13:37
  • ahem* Did you read Hennes' answer? Oct 5, 2015 at 13:48
  • @MariusMatutiae, yes but that still does not explain why the concept can't work; we can run almost any modern PC using a flashdrive with an OS in it, why do computer makers -have- to place their OS's in HD's and not in a place of it's own, not mixed up with the rest of stuff we do? idk why everyone is so against this idea, I'd think it be common sense to find a way to keep things separate and not so vulnerable like they are on HD's.
    – xCare
    Oct 5, 2015 at 13:51

1 Answer 1

4

Basically, the question boils down to: Why do we not design stuff so that the OS cannot be modified. (Using ROM chips or any other method is just an implementation details).

The answer is sadly very simply: We do not make flawless software.

This means that we either:

  1. Have an unchangeble OS with all the bugs in it which we made when the OS was made (and which get discovered afterwards). So it is very unsafe.
  2. Or we can patch the OS...which means we also get the risk of virusses, worms etc because we need to be able to change things.

There simply is no way to say 'we must be able to change without change'.

Best we can do is a changeable OS and only allow updates from a safe trusted source. Which will work as long as there are patches before a vulnarability is used in the wild. (Though technically daily updated chips which are mailed to all users daily and a PC which refuses to boot until it has that days ROM chips would also work.).

8
  • Is it that we truly can't, or that we don't want to for financial or other reasons... we already make updateable firmware for devices which uses chips to store user-upgradable data. There still isn't a clear explanation why this concept can't be taken to the level of an OS.. but perhaps I should rephrase the question, why can't OS's be placed separate from such easily modifiable and vulnerable media as HD's? Why does it have to be an HD?
    – xCare
    Oct 5, 2015 at 13:44
  • 2
    @xCare Anything designed to be modifiable is vulnerable by definition (as are few things that weren't designed to be modifiable).
    – DavidPostill
    Oct 5, 2015 at 13:53
  • @DavidPostill, true, but isn't a OS running out of say a USB more secure and safer than one on a HD? Else, why bother running OS's on USB's and CD's at all?
    – xCare
    Oct 5, 2015 at 13:57
  • 1
    @xCare A USB hard drive is not more secure than an internal hard drive and they likely contain very similar disks. On is portable and the other isn't that's why people run OS from USB. A CD/DWD can be made non writable much easier than can a hard disk.
    – DavidPostill
    Oct 5, 2015 at 14:00
  • @Hennes, let's take your last scenario further: let's say you had an OS chip that automatically updates itself directly from the manufacturer, wouldn't that also solve the problem? and if it does, doesn't that prove that an OS can be made to work with all the functionality of being installed on a HD, from a Chip or separate device?
    – xCare
    Oct 5, 2015 at 14:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .