Re: Atguard?

Bogwitch wrote:


I have presented an entire *class* of software. I'm not going to go into specifics.


Sure you won't, since you'd find that this class is empty.

Is ligitimate in a juristic sence not legitimate then?
Is that even a question? Of course there's a huge difference between law and moral. Do you think that the Iraq war is legitimate just because it is juristically legitimate?

Iraq war != software. Not possible to compare the two. You're clutching at straws.


Now, I'm just illustrating how broken your argument is, by analogy. There is in fact no difference between how moral and law are different on any issue, may it be Iraq war or software.

Nonsense. Free alternatives exists. Beside that, as long as there's no explicit need for the software, this would be no benefit at all.

Not always,


Yes, always. Would also be quite non-plausible how domain-specific software with no alternatives could be ad-ware supported. Doesn't this sound stupid even to you?

and if a user installs a specific piece of software, they have a perceived

> explicit need for it.

Or they're just idiots. Best example so far: Skype.

The author gats paid, the user gets free-to-use software.

Who cares for the author?

Anyone who wants the author to continue writing software?


And what about other authors?

Or have you written all your own OS and apps?


Hm? Missing the logic in there...

Because I don't need to. I've seen AtGuard working for many years. I know it's strengths and weaknesses.


Obviously not, and obviously you didn't bother to audit it properly. Sure you won't see any but the obvious defects until you're actually searching for it.

Anyway, you're contradicting yourself. Any software that does not try to bypass your strange restrictions is legitimate, but then it doesn't require any control at all. Any software that does shouldn't be considered legitimate, and thus control isn't effective.

No, I have cited an example of a *group* of software.


Without any (meaningful) definition.

Not to mention known security vulnerabilities introduced by AtGuard. Where's the problem with running Driver Path Exerciser with the full HCT tests until you'll find the very fine blue screen?

Do you mean the Device Path Exerciser? Wow, that's really obscure. Is that the best you can do? Please explain the security vulnerability that introduces, citing REAL WORLD examples.


Buffer overflow in handling the FsSetVolumeInformation-FsSetDirectoryInformation IOCTL in the NDIS filter driver.

Is the best you can do ignoring everything?

Oh, that's it. Why don't your simply tag it as "bull***"?

It is what it is.


Right. Bull*** spelled out by you, claiming things about what other people are thinking, just some miles away from reality, for cascading your lack or arguments.

I do agree however that the use to which the OP puts AtGuard is legitimate.


Unless you actually think about it.

AtGuard is not so broken.


Is that political correctness for "horribly broken"?

It was, at it's time, a fantastic piece of software,


Unless you took a look a any not so broken implementation.

Just where did I refuse to understand that introducing new software increases complexity and *potentially* reduces security?

> I am advocating the use of AtGuard

See: you do. Advocating the use of a superfluos piece of software without considering the implications.

> as part of a layered security approach.

Ah, the "layered security" buzzword. Of c'mon, you can do better.
.

Quantcast