Actually, NTFS provides better and more robust access control than most Linux filesystems. As you note though many Windows programs must run with privileges high enough that Windows doesn't really benefit from the real power of NTFS.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Will Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 4:49 AM Subject: [brlug-general] Re: limitations of x86 = Windows insecurity? > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > >
