18 Jan
2010
18 Jan
'10
8:15 p.m.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:57:20AM -0700, Richard wrote:
In article <4B53ABD9.1080105 at philpem.me.uk>,
Philip Pemberton <classiccmp at philpem.me.uk> writes:
*sigh*
Windows isn't VMS, despite the rather obvious similarities between VMS
and Windows NT kernel internals. The really annoying thing about Windows
security is that Windows has all the fundamental kernel level
infrastructure to be far more secure than standard Unix, with much more
fine grained security and privilege separation. Only ... as far as I'm
aware, this is pretty much unused, even by Microsoft. Probably because
properly securing a workstation environment (and that is where most
Windows machines are used) without putting it into so much of a
straightjacket as to be useless is _hard_. And requires active thought
at the design phase of the user land software. Look how long it took
for most application vendors to more or less grasp the idea of a
multi-user system on Windows ...
And so convenience wins over security, again.
Regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
It's worked three times for me... No
guarantees for others, I just use
*nix-type OSes because I don't like the swiss-cheese security (if it's
even *that* good.. wire mesh probably has less holes) of Windoze.
Yeah, VMS is such a piece of crap when it comes to security.