That's not true. They use ProcessPrng since versions earlier than 10 are no longer supported (well, rust also has a windows 7 target but that couldn't use ProcessPrng anyway since it wasn't available). The issue they linked is from a decade ago. E.g. here's Chromium: https://github.com/chromium/chromium/blob/dc7016d1ef67e3e128...

> If [ProcessPrng] fails it returns NO_MEMORY in a BOOL (documented behavior is to never fail, and always return TRUE).

From Windows 10 onward ProcessPrng will never fail. There's a whitepaper that gives the justification for this (https://aka.ms/win10rng):

> We also have the property that a request for random bytes never fails. In the past our RNG functions could return an error code. We have observed that there are many callers that never check for the error code, even if they are generating cryptographic key material. This can lead to serious security vulnerabilities if an attacker manages to create a situation in which the RNG infrastructure returns an error. For that reason, the Win10 RNG infrastructure will never return an error code and always produce high-quality random bytes for every request...

> For each user-mode process, we have a (buffered) base PRNG maintained by BCryptPrimitives.dll. When this DLL loads it requests a random seed from kernel mode (where it is produced by the per-CPU states) and seeds the process base PRNG. If this were to fail, BCryptPrimitive.dll fails to load, which in most cases causes the process to terminate. This behavior ensures that we never have to return an error code from the RNG system.

That's a very "shoot the messenger" statement. While Aurich is the community "face" of Ars, I very much doubt he has the power to do anything like that.

Fun fact: NT 3.1 was the first version of NT, released in 1993. It was versioned like that to match Windows 3.1 which had been released the previous year.

And NT really took off with Windows 2000. Not just business people but more ordinary people were using it as a more stable alternative to Windows 95/98 (albeit lacking some compatibility, especially with games).

The System V ABI is as close as we get to an actual specification but not everyone uses it and in any case it only covers a small part of the protocol.

I do not understand the desire for everybody else in the world to act exactly like you. Variety is the spice of life.

> The hardware limitation is specifically TPM 2.0

Almost every even half decent CPU made in the last decade does have TPM 2.0, albeit for some strange reason OEMs used to ship with it disabled. You may be able to turn it on in the bios.

For example, someone getting a google search result containing an AI response is technically interacting with AI but not necessarily making use of its response or even wanting to see it in the first place. Or perhaps someone suspects their insurance premiums were decided by AI (whether that's true or not). Or customer service that requires you go through a chat bot before you get real service.

    \\.\Volume{3558506b-6ae4-11eb-8698-806e6f6e6963}\