In article <ptq3p4-f67.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, fardblossom@xxxxxxxxx
says...
> On 2007-08-12, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
> > ____/ AB on Sunday 12 August 2007 15:57 : \____
> >
> >> On 2007-08-12, flyer <flyer@xxxxxxxxx> claimed:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "An unpatched flaw in drivers from ATI creates a means to smuggle malware
> >>> past improved security defences in the latest version of Windows and into
> >>> the Vista kernel."
> >>>
> >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/10/ati_driver_snafu/
> >>
> >> Vista has "improved security defences" added on? What happened, did the
> >> price of tissue papaer drop or something?
> >
> > See, that's the problem. Security should not be added /on/? Security comes from
> > the bottom of the stack.
>
> That's one factor. Another one is, don't use the same bunch of dolts
> that didn't know how to do it right the first time to go back and give
> it another go. They /already/ proved to be incompetent. Hire some
> smarter monkeys and give them a shot.
>
Windows, at this point, is a corporate attempt to apply heavily
reinforced, fibrated, high shine, high hide, industrial epoxy paint over
the entire surface of a madly vibrating machine which would otherwise
explode into a billion screaming pieces.
It's what they sometimes do to exterior wooden stairways which are dry
rotted, termite eaten, split internally beyond description, and ready to
collapse under the weight of a bird.
No one any longer has a clue what is going on deep within the dark
chambers of windows. The guards have long ago run for their lives, the
re-bar is rusted all the way through, and the team who placed all the
ticking time bombs and spy modules have all been executed and thrown into
the chasm.
Their "patches" (patching implies fixing) are wild guesses in the wind,
and often break more than they fix -- not unlike Bill's big drugs which
have miserable side effect lists vastly longer and far, far worse than
the problem *claimed* to be repaired.
It's a mess allright.
|
|
