This is just a common example of sensationalism...
I don't know where this security researcher struck before,
but he definitely didn't strike anything groundbreaking here :-)
This article is misleading... It confuses features
from the 32-bit Vista and from the 64-bit Vista.
It talks about how
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:07:47 EDT, C Q said:
Overall, it's not really worse than what you'd have with XP...
I'm not a big fan of Vista, but this is definitely not what
people make it to be.
That protection bit isn't what people make it to be either, which is
the whole point.
Quite often, the
At 02:41 p.m. 08/04/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quite often, the *real* security issue is that the protection a given feature
*actually* provides by design isn't the security that people *think* it
provides. For example, some of us may remember a while ago, when there was
a whole flurry of
This is just a common example of sensationalism...
I don't know where this security researcher struck before,
but he definitely didn't strike anything groundbreaking here :-)
This article is misleading... It confuses features
from the 32-bit Vista and from the 64-bit Vista.
It talks about how
