New Patch Fixes 43 Flaws In OS X, Many Serious 2131
Daniel Johnson
You haven't made any case. First you better understand how the kernel gives out unique process ids first and also tied to the user id.
Guffaw!!! Squirming away from the fundamentals of Unix won't do you any good. It just is the way things are handled in Unix.
I did. And I doubt that you are telling the truth here.
Yeah, 5.5 version from a long time ago.
And guess what... the kernel controls that process as well. IE 5.5 does not equal IE 6.0. Matter of fact, IE 5.5 doesn't even resemble the M$ version at all. Where are the trojans for OS X?
That's what you think. And it does do a great deal of good. It prevents malware from executing and seeing that the downloaded object has no id or user id available, the kernel will not execute it.
Why you think it won't is anybodies guess.
Guffaw!! IE 6.0 has always executed stuff sent to it. Don't know about IE 7.0, but that remains to be seen. Ever have your browser hijacked while surfing?
Process *ids* aren't tied to user ids; they are buttigned sequentially. Processes themselves are identifies by ids, and buttociated with users, and much else. You don't know...
But actually not.
It does? I've never seen it do it.
Heh. I have to go to apple for widgets and select the ones I want.
Such as?
Such as?
So? The registry is the one basket mechanism. If you drop the basket all your eggs are broken.
Do you know how a buffer overflow works? This type of code and bug is easily fixed.
I expect that you are wrong. I've yet to have anything auto-execute on me from the internet. This is where the id-gid process permissions come into play.
To most windows users... yes, it is complicated.
There is no need to "trace" anything back to root. Unix processes form a tree rooted at init; but this is a consequence of several other behaviors. When a Other Unix processes...
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?