I reject the thesis that trust is binary. Were I to accept it, I trust nobody - everyone is vulnerable to being subverted by blackmail, intimidation, making mistakes, etc.
You seem to be using a different definition of the word trust than I did. Everyone is vulnerable, does that mean you cannot trust anyone? No, you certainly can, that is the whole point of trust.
This is a lose-lose scenario. If you don't trust a closed operating system in the first place, why would you then, after performing these steps, trust the system that it really does what it says it does. The point is that you don't know, and you can never be sure. The solution is to either trust or not, switch or stay, there is no middle path, because any middle path implies some amount of non-trust.
Apparently new is a "special" operator, or there is a bug in the compiler. I also can't get a warning with g++.
The problem seems to be that, as I said, [] takes any integer expression, it is there where the value gets truncated when operator sizeof or new is applied on it since they either return or take a size_t value.
Because no truncation happens. In this case [] operator doesn't specify any type, only that the expression inside is an integer expression. While normally the type size_t is used for object and array sizes, [] takes any integer expression and the compiler won't complain.
This is a common problem in C. Integer types are inherently type unsafe and are silently promoted with many different rules which are hard to remember and understand. As is seen in this case, even the ( borderline paranoid ) flag -Wconversion would not catch the bug.
I think this problem in C would be solved with a single flag: -Wwarn-if-using-integers-of-different-types-in-an-operation , forcing you to cast the integer if the types don't match in a arithmetic operation, or an assignment.
Can you also fake/spoof the appropriate signatures/headers? Otherwise separating that data is going to be very easy. Unless you do it on a higher level like emulating input, but then you won't have a very useful machine.
Windows 10 seems to transmit information to the server even when OneDrive is disabled and logins are using a local account that isn't connected to a Microsoft Account.
Well there you go. If you ever wondered whether this is happening only on the Microsoft Account(tm).
You got it backwards there. Only if you know your implementation and plan to code only for it, can you even start to consider bending the C Standard, and not the other way around.
Don't put words in my mouth please.
I reject the thesis that trust is binary. Were I to accept it, I trust nobody - everyone is vulnerable to being subverted by blackmail, intimidation, making mistakes, etc.
You seem to be using a different definition of the word trust than I did. Everyone is vulnerable, does that mean you cannot trust anyone? No, you certainly can, that is the whole point of trust.