MUST.... FEED... TROLL...... I have run windows systems for years and have never seen that message as admin. There must be something wrong with your systems. Want me to take a look? ;)
My systems also don't access the floppy drive unless specified to do so.(that im aware of, unless there is some shady floppy business goin on down there. HEY. FLOPPY DRIVE! BAD!) Cmon youre just bashing now. Want to hear some gripes about linux? Im sure we all have our frustrations. My question is, for all you hardware ppl, if its possible to make procs secure so that bad C cant overflow, why hasn't this been done? Chris -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alvaro Zuniga Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 11:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [brlug-general] Re: limitations of x86 = Windows insecurity? 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 _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
