On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:07:47 EDT, C Q said: > > Overall, it's not really worse than what you'd have with XP... > I'm not a big fan of Vista, but this is definitely not what > people make it to be.
That protection bit isn't what people make it to be either, which is the whole point. Quite often, the *real* security issue is that the protection a given feature *actually* provides by design isn't the security that people *think* it provides. For example, some of us may remember a while ago, when there was a whole flurry of activity regarding TCP sequence numbers and RST packets. Turned out that in fact, TCP has *always* worked that way, in that an RST doesn't have to match exactly, it only needs to be inside the window. When RTT*bandwidth products were low and windows were small, in a 2**32 sequence space, the distinction between "match" and "within 16K" was easily overlooked. The community just needed a slap upside the head, because with multi-megabyte windows on today's high-speed links, the distinction *is* important....
pgp3e28v3X1aL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
