http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/977544.mspx
"Affected Software:
Windows 7 for 32-bit Systems
Windows 7 for x64-based Systems
Windows Server 2008 R2 for x64-based Systems
Windows Server 2008 R2 for Itanium-based Systems"
Juha-Matti
__
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 07:51:25PM -0500, Larry Seltzer wrote:
> >> Don't run Windows, morons.
>
> Most of us have wondered for years what it would take for the malware
> community to pay attention to non-Windows platforms. This would do it.
Oh, no doubt. But they will find it considerably more
Oh, no doubt. But they will find it considerably more difficult to go
up against people like Cox and de Raadt, who actually fix problems in a
timely manner, rather than denying them in press releases and quietly
releasing broken patches weeks or months or years later.
We're getting off-track here
--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> And equally of course, this will never happen, because it
> would require actual thinking and innovation rather than mere
.ranting.righteous.justification.snip.
All of the responses to the initial question (and, in fact, the initial
question) speak
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 07:51:25PM -0500, Larry Seltzer wrote:
>> >> Don't run Windows, morons.
>>
>> Most of us have wondered for years what it would take for the malware
>> community to pay attention to non-Windows platforms. This would do
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:52 PM, wrote:
> --- On Sun, 11/15/09, Dan Kaminsky wrote:
>
>> Stuff on Windows is attacked because its popular.
>> That's really all.
>
> I don't believe any system is "secure" if you can't continue to prove it from
> moment to moment and I care a lot less about intr
--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Dan Kaminsky wrote:
> Stuff on Windows is attacked because its popular.
> That's really all.
I don't believe any system is "secure" if you can't continue to prove it from
moment to moment and I care a lot less about intrinsic weaknesses if you can
see when they are explo
--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Dan Kaminsky wrote:
> Non-rhetorical question:
> What do we think the infection discovery rate is, and do we
> think it has increased or decreased in recent years?
More important than discovering infectious agents is discovering *infections
themselves* (which may be what
From Bruce’s blog:
A month ago, ThatsMyFace.com approached me about making a Bruce Schneier action
figure. It's $100. I'd like to be able to say something like "half the proceeds
are going to EPIC and EFF," but they're not. That's the price for custom
orders. I don't even get a royalty. The com
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 08:09:37AM -0500, Larry Seltzer wrote:
> We're getting off-track here, but your experience is, at best, many
> years out of date.
Maybe. Or maybe several years ahead. I suppose we'll see.
Look, I'm *well* aware of the myriad issues involved here, and I am
by no means su
10 matches
Mail list logo
