I don't think we can or should narrow this down to the x86. Solaris/SPARC hasn't been exactly free of exploits, including buffer overflows, either. Let's say "Until recently, most CPU's haven't protected against buffer overflows".
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Baudouin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 11:07 AM Subject: Re: [brlug-general] Re: limitations of x86 = Windows insecurity? > Let me add to this that if it weren't for the insecurity of x86 > architecture, Windows/OpenBSD wouldn't have to spend time developing > fixes and security schemes for buffer overflows and stack smashing > attacks. The NX flag (on AMD64 archs) tries to alleviate this > problem, but i believe there are ways around this. > > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:05:26 -0600, Andrew Baudouin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> The fundamental difference between OpenBSD and the rest of the world >> is that they spend the bulk of their time auditing code for security >> holes rather than implementing new features and making available the >> latest/greatest software packages. This is why SMP wasn't implemented >> until 2004. I do not know the history of Debian Linux and their >> security policies, but I do know that their "stable" distribution is >> many versions behind the latest and greatest on just about every >> software package. >> >> Outlook has never required root ("Administrator") to work. NTFS is >> based from the ground up on permissions. Windows NT 4.0 and above >> tracked processes by PID and allowed the ability to re-"nice", etc. >> >> I have already said this numerous times, but the reason that Microsoft >> is insecure as it is is because of the previous attitudes within the >> corporation of "provide the most features, the most user-friendliness, >> and do it as fast as possible, we'll fix bugs later." >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:49:16 -0600, Will Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > 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 >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > >
