I see a hint of sarcasm here. You have to look hard to see it, but it's there.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alvaro Zuniga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 11:44 AM 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 > >
