__/ [ William Poaster ] on Tuesday 15 May 2007 09:47 \__
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 08:15:04 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 20:50:54 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's time for MS to put up or shut up. Show the patents they claim
>>>> Linux infringes, and then either the coders can fix it, or the legal
>>>> beagles can challange the patent in court.
>>>>
>>>> Absent MS providing concrete info of this nature, it is FUD, pure and
>>>> simple.
>>>
>>> That depends entirely on whether or not their claims are valid.
>>> Failure to support a claim doesn't mean the claim isn't valid.
>
> Oh, I wonder if *this* is why "Ewik the Weasel" believes his spurious
> "claims" don't need to be supported?
> You know the ones:
> Why can't M$ TTFonts be used in linux.
>
> How did the Morris worm spread by email?
>
> What about the "thousands of root exploits per month" he claimed,
> (& was then found to be making it all up)?
>
>
> What was the plan he was going to reveal wrt adding nonsensical
> lines to the ends of Roy's posts? You know, the plan he was going to
> tell us about before he spent a week away and fell behind? Right? The
> time he fell behind by a week and had to take 3 or more months to get
> caught up with posts?
> Just what *was* that plan he claimed he was going to amaze us with?
>
>
>>> You should know that.
>>
>> Yes, we know. SCO has shown us that.
>> And they had "millions of lines of stolen code" to withhold from us
>
> IMO if someone makes claims, they *should* be prepared to back it up with
> solid proof, & *not* strawman arguments....like Ewik the Weasel.
Add this one where he ran away from the argument despite the fact that I
explicitly asked for an answer (at least twice). This was visible to me
because he modified the subject line to mock and stick labels.
===
Message-ID: <2635483.2e5CEGKtRL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject:
Re: [Roy Schestowitz Lies Again] Windows Gets Another 'Hack' to Fix
Inherently-insecure System (was: [News] Windows Gets Another 'Hack' to Fix
Inherently-insecure System)
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:45:29 +0100
References:
<5873372.Td0drfXh8W@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1mvmxs8e2ac13$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1634949.4TdDgiFVp8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-OpenPGP: id=74572E8E; url=http://schestowitz.com/PGP
Xref: ellandroad.demon.co.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:518604
References: 1 2 3
__/ [ Roy Schestowitz ] on Saturday 28 April 2007 11:50 \__
> __/ [ Erik Funkenbusch ] on Saturday 28 April 2007 08:45 \__
>
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 03:52:30 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft mulling major changes to ward off .ANI-type flaws
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| During the creation of Windows Vista, more than 140,000 unsafe API calls
>>>| were banned and Howard hinted that one more -- "memcpy" -- might be
>>>| added to the list for new code coming out of Redmond.
>>>|
>>>| [...]
>>>|
>>>| ""The SDL is not perfect, nor will it ever ever be perfect," Howard
>>>| argued. "We still have work to do, and this bug shows that. We have
>>>| a new -GS pragma that adds more stack cookies; we?ve updated our
>>>| fuzz tools; we will pay closer attention to exception handlers that
>>>| could mask vulnerabilities, and we will investigate the impact of
>>>| banning "memcpy" for new code," he added.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=181
>>
>> I'm struggling to find ANY way that you could possibly not be lying
>> here. This article talks about Microsoft's software development lifecycle,
>> and how they are taking steps by barring the use of functions that have a
>> history of unsafe use, as well as various tools to help identify flawed
>> code. Yet your title says that Microsoft is issuing some hack patch to
>> fix windows.
>>
>> They're two ENTIRELY different concepts. One is a proactive stance
>> taken by professional developers (OpenBSD uses a similar approach), and
>> the other is creating a crappy piece of code.
>>
>> Do you not even read the articles you link to? How do you justify
>> fabricating these subject lines?
>
> Subject lines modified to get past filters, eh?
>
> Do you consider the following measure a step towards security? Or is it
> just a workaround for flawed design?
bump
Runs away again?
> Program Names govern admin rights in Vista
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "This is a little bit silly: just name the installer something
> | else, and Vista lets it through," Chess said. He added that
> | although the feature is imperfect and inconvenient, it's
> | "better than nothing".
> `----
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/23/vista_program_naming_oddness/
|
|
