Windows insecurity 13586
T.G. Reaper
Actually there is where you are wrong.
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 05:45:02 +0000, Kelsey Bjarnason This is mostly FUD. Very few apps require...
I remember, I took a Windows programming clbutt for Windows 3.0. One of the example programs was "OK Button." It was a cute little program that could attach itself to every single application's button control, and if the control had the value of IDOK, would move it randomly when receiving mouse messages.
It was a cute program at the time, but as I look back, it had ominous implications. Microsoft was proud of this ability. They went to great lengths to allow applications to muck with the system and other applications, look at the whole "tool help" infrastructure.
snips On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 17:33:02 -0800, T.G. Reaper Actually, it is. Contrast a standard Windows install versus a standard...
Granted that was on DOS Windows, but that culture still exists in Windows. Most non-trivial applications require you to run with Administrator privies. This is because of two reasons, (1) Microsoft does not understand, or at least consider, security with regards to API specs. This forces applications to circumvent Windows infrastructure. Having developed software in this platform for well over a decade, I can tell you that *no* non-trivial application exists without bypbutting systems and-or using undocumented APIs. (2) Security is not a marketable-quantifiable feature for marketing in any real sense. One can say 50% more secure!!! but Microsoft doesn't care about effectiveness of a claim, only that they can make it on the sales pitch.
Linux Advocacy from Newsgroups