Network Operations wrote:
> "Microsoft has embarked on a campaign known as the "war on hostile code", with the
>goal of preventing any hostile code from running on users' systems."
>
> Won't this crash Office/Outlook and Win98/2k ??
>
> (sorry I had to do it...)
You may make a better point than you meant to make. cf. the flame war a
while back between Cult of the Dead Cow (of BackOrifice fame) and M$:
M$: BO is malicious code with no redeeming features.
CdC: It relies entirely on API's which M$ also use for their own remote
control software, including the "stealth" feature which allows both
applications to function without the knowledge of the user at the keyboard.
Make Windows unable to run BO, and you also make it unable to run
Microsoft's own remote admin tool. CdC made the point (well taken IMO)
that the biggest difference between BO and M$'s own remote control
software is that BO is big-f Free and not under the control of the M$
marketing machine.
Makes me wonder how M$ have chosen to define "hostile" this time around.
Probably in much the same way that they define "secure" as "preventing
the user from accessing any music or software without first proving that
they've paid for it."
But I do go on.
More generally, a lot of people much smarter than me (the NSA's Secure
Linux team for starters) have said that the only way to combat "hostile
code" effectively is to build the OS with capabilities and trust
features, something that's missing from most mainstream OS's these days.
I'd be shocked right down to my Corcorans if M$ spent the time and
effort necessary to give their next whitewash of WinNT robust
capabilities features.
But hey, maybe.
--
~~~Michael Jinks, IB // Technical Entity // Saecos Corporation~~~~
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
