MESSAGE
| DATE | 2004-09-04 |
| FROM | Billy
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: Advocacy vs. Zealotry vs. Who Cares?!?
|
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 02:06:02PM -0400, Ruben Safir Secretary NYLXS wrote:
> >
> > > For gods sake, it might even be worse than this. It might spin
> > > processes without geninue permisions AND throw programs up from the
> > > MSFT as threads of ACCESS and Excell!!!
> >
>
>
> > You lost me.
>
> What happens when you run 2 programs which use the Access hooks for the
> MSFC
>
> You don't get a new process. They thread off one process.
No, you get a new process.... Stop repeating yourself.
> When you write a C program in Windows, where is the main statement.
What's the difference what the entry point is called?
> Why do the memory blocks have to be locked down.
What's your objection to this?
> Why is there no
> fork() but evexec or some nonsense like that?
There's CreateProcess(). There is no fork. I don't know what your
> > > God oh mighty. What a freaken mess the internals of the MS Windows OS is!
> >
> > *IS* or *MIGHT BE*... You're playing Chicken Little here. Just stop FUDding!
> >
> > You haven't substantiated this statement with any facts at all.
> >
> > Adam is right.. The real issue is liberty.
>
> Adams statement is only ancillary to this discussion. The GNU systems
> ***Are More Secure*** by design.
Perhaps on an apps integration level, but not in the kernel.
> > > In regard to the permissions issues as well, IE has direct access and
> > > permision to run ANYTHING in windows.
> >
> > Total horsepucky! Knock it off!
>
> I wish I was the fud master your claiming. I'm 100% for FUD against
> Microsoft products. Meanwhile, I stand by that statement.
You have to beat them without FUD.. FUD will blowback at you, and
you'll lose credibility and ultimately lose the war.
> Show me the NT kernel?
Read this article and tell me that NT doesn't have a kernel...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dndllpro/html/msdn_realtime.asp
> Where is permissions information attached to the
> running processes?
I don't know exactly.
> WHo is the user that owns IIS? Exchange?
I don't know.. I never ran IIS.
> > > They've done programatic things in IE to
> > > cover up one exposure at a time. But the IE program, as a fundemental
> > > and purposeful aspect of its design, thorugh activeX and VB Scripting, is
> > > a Virus and Worm Net exploited by ever damn adware maker on the market.
> >
> > We're not talking about web browsers. We're talking about Operating Systems.
>
> Hey - IE is intregrated into the Windows OS. It's core to the OS. Just ask
> them....
Ask Ed Felten.
> And it doesn't matter.
> All Windows applications have access to EVERYTHING.
Utter nonsense!
> And IE has a built in widget set to pull all the triggers called Active X
So what? Do you need ActiveX for anything?
The only thing I've ever been tempted to use ActiveX for was:
http://www.marykateandashley.com
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
