Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Hasta ls Vista

  • Subject: Re: Hasta ls Vista
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:29:21 +0100
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <1129238512.904652.132070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <w158z3amorz$.dlg@funkenbusch.com>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [Erik Funkenbusch] on Friday 14 October 2005 01:39 \__

> On 13 Oct 2005 14:21:52 -0700, Daeron wrote:
>> Opportunities for hackers
>> anon Oct 05 2005
>> As we all knew, it was only a matter of time before the new Windows
>> Vista's supposed security was to be compromised.

Given that all Vista code is a recent fallback to XP (or Server 2003), I
speculate that we ("we" not as in prospective users) are yet to see many
further delays. If the product is unleashed in late 2006, there will be an
'onslaught' of on-line updates, i.e. patches. This means that people will
get some rudimentary, opaque binaries and development will continue at
Redmond, committing the changes to people's computers very rapidly.

Vista had to be re-built from scratch[1] and I can only imagine the mess
involved with keeping up-to-date the bug fixes from 2000, ME, XP and now
incorporating them into Vista. That's why WinFS and all the other
'innovative' stuff was put on hold. As M$ struggles for survival, it is
trying to get its s*** together when it comes to security. It's total chaos
behind the stage.

>> [...]
>> The security in Windows is simply non-existent .. And that reality has
>> been proved yet again by an Austrian who took advantage of Vista's new
>> command line shell, Monad, to write what's now known as the first
>> virus designed for Windows Vista, before Vista even exited the beta
>> stage in development ...
>> http://p2pnet.net/story/6495
> Geez, this was debunked 4 months ago.  The so called "viruses" are nothing
> more than shell scripts.  The exact same thing can be done in bash or any
> other shell.
> In fact, the article linked to by the story says this:
> "Monad will be like Linux's BASH (Bourne Again Shell) -- that means a
> great number of commands and functions," he wrote. "We will be able to
> make as huge and complex scripts as we do in Linux."
> I guess that proves how insecure Linux is then, right?

I don't know if a troll wrote this, or perhaps it's sarcasm. As far as I
know, the revelation by the Austrian was concerned with hacking Monad "from
the bottom", not using it maliciously.

(free reg.)


    REDMOND, Wash. ? Jim Allchin, a senior Microsoft Corp. executive, walked
into Bill Gates?s office here one day in July last year to deliver a
bombshell about the next generation of Microsoft Windows.

    ?It?s not going to work,? Mr. Allchin says he told the Microsoft
chairman. The new version, code-named Longhorn, was so complex its writers
would never be able to make it run properly.

    The news got even worse: Longhorn was irredeemable because Microsoft
engineers were building it just as they had always built software.
Throughout its history, Microsoft had let thousands of programmers each
produce their own piece of computer code, then stitched it together into
one sprawling program. Now, Mr. Allchin argued, the jig was up. Microsoft
needed to start over. 



Roy S. Schestowitz      | Windows XP: Dude, where's my RAM?
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux    |     PGP-Key: 74572E8E
  1:15pm  up 50 days  1:29,  3 users,  load average: 0.92, 0.34, 0.57
      http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index