Is it the hardware or the way it's used? What fundamental differences are there between the Microsoft way and OpenBSD or Debian? Has Microsoft implemented basic precautions such as PIDs tracked by the kernel, users, and root accounts? The last time I checked, processes could still hide, Outlook and other processes had to run as root to work and file permissions were based on some kind of table system rather than inherent in the file system. It's possible Microsoft has leapt over these old problems, but I doubt they can ever do as well as they should and still give Holywood DRM.
On Wednesday 26 January 2005 10:21 pm, Andrew Baudouin wrote: > They have made leaps and strides when it comes to security recently. > ... if the x86 architecture were not as insecure as it is, Windows wouldn't > look half as bad, but the blame can certainly be evenly placed on both > sides of the equation.
