RE: [Full-Disclosure] Windows 2000 Source Leak Verified. Get ready for the havoc.
From: Aditya, ALD [Aditya Lalit Deshmukh] (aditya.deshmukh_at_online.gateway.technolabs.net)
To: <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>, "Lee" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:08:49 +0530
off topic, just some random thoughts
maybe ms will "release" the next batch of 1/3 code in some time for "peer review" so that they can remove all the bugs and security holes before the next release of windows - long horn is that it ?
as per ms windows is more secure because it has closed source now... so with the source in the open windows is not secure any more.
are we going to see mass dumping of windows machines due to this ?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:28 AM
> To: Lee
> Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
> email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Windows 2000 Source Leak Verified. Get
> ready for the havoc.
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:42:39 GMT, Lee <email@example.com> said:
> > again its 1/100 of standardd MS code for a OS, lets get a grip
> please... and
> > I think I see the company who let the source get loose come out and say
> Most earlier estimates of the Win2K source were about 45M lines
> of code (I think
> the "40 gig" being tossed around is the size of the
> source-control-system database).
> And I've seen the number 12.5M lines of code escaped. That's
> closer to 1/3 than
> to 1/100.
> And remember that there's a synergistic effect - when you have
> THAT big of a chunk
> of the source, you can start making a lot more educated guesses
> about what the
> other 2/3 are...
Delivered using the Free Personal Edition of Mailtraq (www.mailtraq.com)
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.