--- Andrew Baudouin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought I pretty clearly said 'partially', while
> your new message
> begins with "limitations of x86 = Windows
> insecurity". A minor
> quabble :)
Note that my subject included a question mark ("?"),
as I was implying a question. Agreed, a minor quibble.
> The x86 architecture indeed allows code execution
> from the stack and
> data segments (you could store opcodes and data
> inside registers and
> stack pointers and execute them, no harm no foul).
> This is what
> renders buffer overflow exploits and stack smashing
> attacks on
> Linux/i386 so common, even among Linux/i386 as we
> have seen in the
> past.
I was not aware of this prior to this discussion.
> The other part of the equation is the fact that for
> years and years
> Microsoft has been focused on bells and whistles as
> opposed to
> security.
Agreed.
> Fortunately, things are turning around
> now. (Theo de Raadt
> and the other OpenBSD members are and have been
> focused singlemindedly
> on code auditing at the expense of modern features).
>
> This is what allowed Microsoft to gain popularity
> and market share!
I think this also made the possibility of secure
alternatives to Windows inevitable. Competition is a
good thing.
> Their features and their continuing support of
> legacy programs
> throughout their entire product line.
I never thought this was a great idea. Why does
Win2000 Server need Windows Media Player (for
example)? I think Windows server admins would like
less bells and whistles and more control.
> When the
> market told them to
> increase focus on security, they listened.
Yeow, that's scary. I agree with you; Microsoft is a
business, and businesses must make money, but it seems
more like mob rule than intelligent design. On the
other hand, I'm sure many Microsofties look at Linux
as mob rule. ;)
John
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:07:17 -0800 (PST), John
> Hebert
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Same here. The OpenBSD project seems to have no
> > problem writing a pretty secure OS with the x86
> > architecture.
> >
> > Andrew, can you elaborate?
> >
> > --- shrek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I might be confused, but what "architectural
> > > limitations" caused
> > > Microsoft to write buggy/bad code?
> > >
> > > - Dennis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:59:29 -0600, Andrew
> Baudouin
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I'm starting to wonder if maybe the
> architectural
> > > limitations of x86
> > > > aren't partially to blame for the insecurity
> of
> > > Windows....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:14:01 -0600 (CST), Brad
> > > Bendily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > if they'd just port it to x86.
> > > > >
> > > > > Amen brother!
> > > > >
> > > > > > The market is practically begging for a
> > > > > > secure, reliable, "standardized" OS to get
> > > away from Windows. If OSX ran
> > > > > > on x86, i think it would be real
> competition
> > > for Linux, especially for
> > > > > > people/companies moving to Linux to get
> away
> > > from Windows.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can all hope and pray for this to happen.
> I
> > > dunno they released
> > > > > a headless mac. That's a move in the right
> > > direction. Maybe the
> > > > > next step will be release OSX for x86! I
> think
> > > you're right,
> > > > > I think a lot of people would be very
> interested
> > > in running
> > > > > a smooth looking solid running OS that
> already
> > > has lots of vendor
> > > > > support.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wait, i'm already doing that! Well, OSX
> would be
> > > cool too!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > BB
> > > > >
> > > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > > General mailing list
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > >
> > >
> http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > General mailing list
> > > > [email protected]
> > > >
> > >
> http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > General mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail
> SpamGuard.
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > General mailing list
> > [email protected]
> >
> http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
