Focus on Apple
Re: Bill Gates on Mac OS X security Feb 03 2007 02:29AM
Pat Plummer, MD (blacksun ix gotdns org) (1 replies)
Re: Bill Gates on Mac OS X security Feb 03 2007 05:02AM
David Maynor (dmaynor gmail com) (2 replies)
Re: Bill Gates on Mac OS X security Feb 03 2007 03:21PM
Dave Schroeder (das doit wisc edu) (2 replies)
Re: Bill Gates on Mac OS X security Feb 04 2007 11:42AM
Howard Oakley (h oakley btconnect com)
Re: Bill Gates on Mac OS X security Feb 03 2007 04:56PM
David Maynor (dmaynor gmail com) (1 replies)
Re: Bill Gates on Mac OS X security Feb 03 2007 05:17PM
Dave Schroeder (das doit wisc edu)
Re: Bill Gates on Mac OS X security Feb 03 2007 07:24AM
Pat Plummer, MD (blacksun ix gotdns org)
On Feb 2, 2007, at 10:02 PM, David Maynor wrote:

> Before you roll your eye and write me off as a Microsoft fanboy, ask
> your self why many other Operating systems like Linux and OpenBSD have
> intergrated this type of technology yet OSX still hasn't.

Nice point - it could be possibly be a good thing if these were
implemented in OSX (if needed).

I am superficially familiar with ASLR/other antiexploit technologies
(certainly not to the depth that you all are), but still have to ask
my question again.

Who's to say that the essentially completely new Vista code base is
less or more secure than other more fully tested OSes until it gets
hammered on? Theoretically, it *should be* more secure and it almost
certainly has to be more secure than xp and its ancestors (almost
anything would be) - but that doesn't mean it's necessarily so, does
it? Code can never be completely perfect in a system with such
complex interactions - no matter the platform. Near as I can tell
anyway - unless Microsoft engineers have reached Nirvana and no
longer make mistakes? Or do leveraging these technologies completely
insulate the system from mistakes in design, coding, process
interaction, etc. ?

> don't be mad at me

I wasn't to begin with. Must be a glitch in your programming :) .
Just trying to understand it all and why one side has to be so right
and the other so wrong...

Pat

[ reply ]


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus