Re: Hidden-code flaw in Windows renews worries over stealthly malware

From: Hairy One Kenobi (abuse_at_[127.0.0.1)
Date: 09/06/05


Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:11:33 GMT


"Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ecCdnZ2dnZ0a8I-8nZ2dnecEgd6dnZ2dRVn-zp2dnZ0@adelphia.com...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>
> > "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:V6-dndoYTK-ISIbeRVn-pQ@adelphia.com...
> >
> >> Jim, this thread is about a Hidden Code flaw relating to the Windows
> >> Registry. Keep to the topic...
> >
> > OK, here goes for the very first on-topic post of this thread ;o)
> >
> > MS are, regrettably (for some), perfectly correct - it's Bad Programming
> > in things /running/ on Windows.
> >
> > Easy to duplicate with an INI file - cripple the line length that an
> > editor will cope with to (say) 255 characters* and then try to edit an
INI
> > file with a longer line lurking in there somewhere.
> >
> > Volia! You've just duplicated the problem on a different platform.
>
> I believe you meant a different configuration source...

Nope. Unless you're claiming that (say) VI was never available under UNIX?

The same technique works.

> > So, now that we've sorted that out, back to Windows-bashing for
> > everyone..?
> > :o)
>
> A criticism is bashing??? I guess it depends on which side you side
> with....plus, face it, Microsoft just gives too much ammunition.

Unwarranted criticism, with no hope of sustaining a valid argument, is
"bashing".

The real arguments (away from this froup) have been varied and.. to be
honest, utterly pointless and inconsequential. Of no more interest to the
professional techie than the Ultrix beats VMS religious yawns^H^H^H^Hwars of
two decades' ago.

Sad to say - and please feel free to Google/Deja for the posts, excessive
and blindly illogical platform advocacy has actually /harmed/ adoption.

I'd be happy to argue the point (although this is hardly the correct
froup!). Let's take a specific example that we both know about: Ultrix.

Ultrix wasn't quite as greasy as Olson's "snake oil", but (i) failed basic
Y2k, (ii) had a sufficiently "blow chunks" IP stack to put-off many
professional developers, (iii) was noticeable inferior in a number of areas
to OpenVMS on a platform basis (SunOS was less crap, and significantly
cheaper when it came to hardware, OS, and layered products)

I've endured the IP stack; I've programmed non-transparent DECnet (thanks,
guys, for giving me a whole *two sentences* in the bleeding manual).

I've also done "stuff" with UNIX, DG RDOS (don't ask. No, really - the
machines came with hardware diagrams in the manual) and some even more
obscure platforms (Spirit-3).

Let me put it this way: I'm a /techie/.

But one that lives in (approximately) the Real World.

Rarely, I don't actually have a Linux platform to play with at home - RH
went Gnome on the installation, and some idiot didn't test how that worked
with a generic 15" flat-panel. Given that I needed the Ethereal
*application* rather urgently, I simply shoved Windows onto the box.
Couldn't be bothered with the Solaris box (other plans, application-wise).
Just got p*ssed-off with the failure of a perfectly good machine, and a
badly scratched "previous version" RH Linux CD (the *working* version,
running on the same physical machine).

Let's add to that an IBM mainframe emulator (license costs - let alone the
eye-watering cost of the two IBM [crap] SCSI disks that I'd have needed to
replace) meant that I wrote an emulator that runs on Windows. I'd /love/ to
have it on Kylix, but there doesn't seem to be anyone interested in that
particular project. So much for Linux Open-Source heroes.

In other words, it's the software and applications that count. Linux - in
one instance - found severely wanting. A lot of primarily Linux-based
software is still found wanting. And - like the average user or Corporate -
I'm only interested in applications. Do I really give a toss whether the
case is held together by Metric or Imperial screw-threads? I think not. And
that's of about as much interest as the OS. It's down to cost, cost of
support, and security.

Anyhow. I'm still mildly p*ssed (hence the mispetl novella I've just typed).
Where possible, I pick the best platform for the job; who knows, if
BSD^H^H^HMacOS on Intel is available soon, that'll probably join the mix.

Anyone that talks in absolutes ("myOS am best") is either unrealistic,
narrow-minded, or just plain arrogant. Or a combination.

If you can't find a use for Windows, or can't find a use for Linux, then
you're either not looking hard enough, bigoted, incompetent, or all three.
Or in a peculiarly specific industry (consultancy available to help ;o)

Oh, and apparently 70% on yer genuine line-of-business data is on an IBM
mainframe. Just a thought.

H1K



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Need Advice on Linux vs. Windows for a Database-Driven Web Application
    ... > add another server running LINUX.) ... The development and system maintenance cost are going to ... with the platform you have. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Why NOT to use QT
    ... >> Because if large number of ISV's start to use it to make their apps ... The current version of Qt is GPL-ish for Mac and Linux (older versions are ... If you like it and can live with the cost and /or license ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: hardware firewall
    ... >>that will also provide IP restrictions will cost more than the Server ... > linux along the way which really isn't that hard. ... associated with maintaining a new platform (assuming he's not a Linux ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Mini-FAQ: Antivirus-Software fuer Linux (v1.12, 11.10.2002)
    ... F-Secure Antivirus for Linux ... Platform: Linux, Solaris ... Download: http://www.f-secure.com/download-purchase/ ... Developer: Kaspersky Lab, Russia ...
    (de.comp.os.unix.linux.infos)
  • Mini-FAQ: Antivirus-Software fuer Linux (v1.12, 11.10.2002)
    ... F-Secure Antivirus for Linux ... Platform: Linux, Solaris ... Download: http://www.f-secure.com/download-purchase/ ... Developer: Kaspersky Lab, Russia ...
    (de.comp.os.unix.linux.infos)