Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Thursday 24 August 2006 19:17 \__
>
> >
> > "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:2745405.P4bP2ZnvH8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> __/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Thursday 24 August 2006 18:01 \__
> >>
> >>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >>> news:2064683.UVGrTlPCn1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisemac/archives/2006/08/is_windows_inhe.html
> >>>
> >>> This reply is just to let nessuno know that I have read and thought
> >>> about the issues discussed in the article. Unfortunately, I don't feel
> >>> qualified to comment on it in any depth, as I'm not familiar with the
> >>> topics Tom Yager discusses.
> >>
> >> Oliver,
> >>
> >> Have a look here:
> >>
> >> The short life and hard times of a Linux virus
> >>
> >> ,----[ Quote ]
> >> | For a Linux binary virus to infect executables, those executables must
> >> | be writable by the user activating the virus. That is not likely to be
> >> | the case. Chances are, the programs are owned by root and the user is
> >> | running from a non-privileged account. Further, the less experienced
> >> | the user, the lower the likelihood that he actually owns any
> >> | executable programs. Therefore, the users who are the least savvy about
> >> | such hazards are also the ones with the least fertile home directories
> >> | for viruses.
> >> |
> >> | [...]
> >> `----
> >> http://librenix.com/?inode=21
> >
> > Yup, I've seen you post this quote elsewhere in this thread, and in
> > other threads as well, and I don't deny that this is a very strong argument
> > in favor of Linux. However, a lot of the stuff Yager talks about is way
> > over my head. For example, he writes "All Windows background
> > processes/daemons are spawned from a single hyper-privileged process" and I
> > had no idea it worked this way, so obviously I've never had to opprtunity
> > to consider the security implications of this.
>
> Processes and ownership are an important matter. Windows implements a
> pseudo-multi-user model because it wasn't (at least initially) built for
> more than a single user.
Bullshit. Win2k, XP and Vista all are from NT code base which is mutli
user, multi processor, multi tasking and multi threaded from very first
day.
> Remember how Windows 98, for example, did not have
> a proper login screen?
That was 8 years ago. Try sticking to current Windows shipping
products.
> Anyhow, this system of privileges was simply laid on
> top.
Bullshit. ACL and privilege was designed into NT operating system on
very first day. It is Lie-nux that tried to copy this with ACL and add
them on top of existing shit.
> But how can a user intercept processes and control what runs with which
> privileges? It's complex unless you implement the kernel properly from the
> start.
Here Roy pulls buzzwords from his ass and tries to sound smart. He is
really clueless moron who have no clue what he just wrote.
> Otherwise, it's prone to hacks. And prompts don't bring home the
> bacon. If their frequency is excessively high, users will just "yes" or "OK"
> everything. Ultimately: same problems, more nags.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Roy
>
> --
> Roy S. Schestowitz | "Error, no keyboard - press F1 to continue"
> http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
> Cpu(s): 19.0% user, 2.7% system, 1.0% nice, 77.3% idle
> http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
|
|
