Re: [Full-disclosure] Defense in depth -- the Microsoft way (part 9): erroneous documentation

> I am truly shocked that seemingly, stuff like this needs to be said in > the year of 2013. Completely right! > I'd have supposed that things like these should be known by *anyone* > doing anything even remotely similar to software development *at least* > since the end of the 8.3 filename era 1

Re: [Full-disclosure] Defense in depth -- the Microsoft way (part 9): erroneous documentation

I'm on the same page as Pascal, what is the point of this? The part that really stands out for me is how Microsoft is being singled out here. If it's about their documentation, then it's not really about a vulnerability. If it's NOT about their documentation, then you'd be hard pressed to find a pl

Re: [Full-disclosure] Defense in depth -- the Microsoft way (part 9): erroneous documentation

I am truly shocked that seemingly, stuff like this needs to be said in the year of 2013. I'd have supposed that things like these should be known by *anyone* doing anything even remotely similar to software development *at least* since the end of the 8.3 filename era 15 years ago. Are you sure this

[Full-disclosure] Defense in depth -- the Microsoft way (part 9): erroneous documentation

Hi, in I documented beginners errors (unquoted pathnames containing spaces) not only in Microsoft products. Microsofts developer documentation but shows these beginners errors too (and is inconsistent, even in single topics). Examples: