One of the coolest security implementation I have noticed in windows is when you are running as admin and you attempt to do a particular task, it prompts the nice popup:
"You do not have enough privileges ..." If the admin does not, I wonder who? That is security at work, prevent the admin from doing something wrong. I love Microsoft. The best! Open BSD should learn from them. Another cool feature probably for security reasons is when you try to access or open a file, it has this wonderful function call that checks for the Floppy drive; it makes a cool sound too. This is just in case you triy to access some malicious code that has not been audited by the security policies, nothing can get by that; the process is quite slow due to the response time of the hardware; therefore, this delay could not possibly be because of odd algorithm design. Alvaro Zuniga On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 11:04, Dustin Puryear wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
