Printable View
What quote are you talking about Nightfalls Girl???Quote:
we all better start a bussness fixing pc's just think of all the little kiddies playing with this new tool...
I agree catch...thats why Microsoft and Bill Gates r so successful...cuz they know how to run a big business. I also agree though that there r so many holes in there software windows should be made illegal. But thats also due part to it being so popular...they're programmers could do a lil better though.
Look through the exploit archives and take note of a few things:Quote:
I also agree though that there r so many holes in there software windows should be made illegal.
1. Nearly ALL Windows NT line exploits can be resolved via correct configuration. (though code patching is made availible for simplicity sake)
2. Nearly all Linux/UN*X exploits require code patching.
3. Configuration issues are rarely reported as exploits in Linux/UN*X land because there is no uniformity of configuration.
What does this say to you? To me it says that although Linux/UN*X code may be better, their architecture (especially Linux) tends to be inferior and the systems cannot protect themselves from application level exploits as well as NT can.
With the advent of Palladium this will be even more true.
Is NT a secure system? No.
Is any Linux/UN*X a secure system? No.
Do secure systems exist? Yes.
Should people who live in glass houses stop throwing stones? ...
catch
dear catch...
the question is purly ethical... while the M$ can, has and will look at linux/BSD or any other source whenever they want and patch/improve/clone and copy it into their own software... while linux & co. has to stand on its own...
the reason there are not many code/app exploits in win. is simply because nobody ever sees the source... (i wonder what could the russian hackers do w/ it)
the reason there are not many config. problems w/ *nix is that ppl who use it for bussiness know what the **** they are doing... (not MCSA's)
anyway .. no matter how good the M$ software is ... THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT ON THEIR OWN ... i don't understand how naive ppl can be to think that M$ (or any other big bussiness) will be ethical when it comes to open source (i bet you they have a division, analyzing every patch to linux kernel)
What question is ethical? I don't see an ethical dilema here at all. It is not like MS steals the source, the BSD/Linux people make it freely availible, so what is the problem? Also, Linux and BSD borrow concepts and code as well, what is this whole SCO thing about? This doesn't even consider concepts that BSD took from KSOS. Please learn your OS history a little better before throwing stones.Quote:
the question is purly ethical... while the M$ can, has and will look at linux/BSD or any other source whenever they want and patch/improve/clone and copy it into their own software... while linux & co. has to stand on its own...
Source code audits are perhaps the least efficient possible and should ONLY be used to ensure that a given module meets it's design criteria and NOT EVER, EVER, EVER for security. For example, Linux code can be completely bug free, but it uses an inferior architecture so it can never be secure as say Win98 running on top of KSOS. And Russian hackers are nothing special, and they all choke when it comes to TOSes.Quote:
the reason there are not many code/app exploits in win. is simply because nobody ever sees the source... (i wonder what could the russian hackers do w/ it)
Like when apache.org was rooted via FTP, Apache, mySQL, and Bugzillia misconfigurations all on the same system? No, they are not considered exploits because there are so many different flavors with different default configurations so no universal setting exists.Quote:
the reason there are not many config. problems w/ *nix is that ppl who use it for bussiness know what the **** they are doing... (not MCSA's)
First off MS has made many things and I have attached the development history of Windows for your benefit. Also, Windows uses a superior microkernel architecture not that monolithic 1970's crap that Linux uses so I can assure you they do not care what Linux kernel patches come out.Quote:
anyway .. no matter how good the M$ software is ... THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT ON THEIR OWN ... i don't understand how naive ppl can be to think that M$ (or any other big bussiness) will be ethical when it comes to open source (i bet you they have a division, analyzing every patch to linux kernel)
catch
You're missing the point. This isn't a debate on the relative merits of operating systems,Quote:
What question is ethical? I don't see an ethical dilema here at all.
but whether the PC should become a proprietary machine, only able to run "approved"
software and handle "approved" data. It's all about digital rights management
and copy protection, and dumbing down the PC so that it is nothing more than a TV
:cool:
doesn't this mean people will start making viruses that can flash your BIOS and completely erase it or replace it with a custom message this is awful
no I am not, my "What question is ethical? I don't see an ethical dilema here at all." was in reply to "the question is purly ethical" so if anyone is missing the point... yeah...Quote:
You're missing the point.
And again this is the answer that bussines want, copyrights need to be protected, otherwise why do they exist?
catch
has anyone got a date on this
I do not USUALLY get in these pissing matches, but ...
Everyone has their favorite OS, and they probably have their reasons. I like and use M$ products as well as Linux, and yes, AIX: they each have their pluses and minuses.
For security purposes I think the OS should be separate from the BIOS. Period. ( but then again, I don't like being able to flash a BIOS without having to first physically change a jumper )
Catch;
is that what Apple thinks? How about Netscape ? SUN? Where did the mouse come from ? How do the people at FreeBSD feel? What the hell was that about Vbs??Quote:
It is not like MS steals ...
Etc., etc., etc.
How about following the terms of the license??Quote:
...the BSD/Linux people make it freely available, so what is the problem?
I guess everyone puts in their design criteria that there should be no buffer overruns and this IS checked, but not for security reasons ??Quote:
Source code audits are perhaps the least efficient possible and should ONLY be used to ensure that a given module meets it's design criteria and NOT EVER, EVER, EVER for security.
That is why M$ is in the situation they are in, because they keep trying to make things simple without regard for the consequences.Quote:
This move with Phoenix is looking like more foundational work toward Palladium plus a few other things that will simplify enterprise management.
Catch, you steered the subject of the thread away from integrating the OS and BIOS to bashing everything and everyone who does not think M$ is “holier then though”.
Through this entire thread it sounds like you work for M$ and/or Phoenix Technologies and are trying to justify and protect your job.
Or did your nephew put a keylogger on YOUR computer ???
IKnowNot, clever use of quotes (well not clever, what is the word... immature), like where I talk about MS not stealing from BSD/Linux and you throw up Apple and Netscape and many other unrelated items.
And following the terms of the license? The Linux/BSD code will not transfer directly to MS (completely different architecture, remember?), and the license doesn't cover ideas. (many of which the BSD/Linux people stole from other OSes)
I can see that you've never designed a non ad hoc software project, so yeah... that'll be a dead end.
My original thread on this was stating how this step is a critical part of the Palladium plan and everything there after was response to stupid, illogical comments. Like this one:
Which explains why all of the most secure systems: XTS-300, SMG, SecureOS, LOCK, and AITS (all of which target the TCSEC's A1 criteria, with XTS-300 having eventually fallen as low as B3) all use bios integration? Perhaps you should learn a little more about trusted systems design before you open your mouth. In fact I cannot think of a single high security system that does not have a completely integrated relationship with it's specific hardware (KSOS and pSOS are notable exceptions, but in their design guidelines it was stated that that such a relationship would be required for them to work as intended and like the other system I mentioned, they would lose assurances if they were run on any other hardware.)Quote:
For security purposes I think the OS should be separate from the BIOS. Period.
Again, as my original post stated
I have no idea what you are talking about with keyloggers so I'll just assume it was an ill fated attempt at humor.
catch
PS. I see not a single one of you downloaded the document I was so nice as to share, I guess this explains the ignorance.