Re: The importance of IVs
tomstdenis_at_gmail.com
Date: 08/28/05
- Next message: Regis: "Re: The importance of IVs"
- Previous message: Regis: "Re: The importance of IVs"
- In reply to: Regis: "Re: The importance of IVs"
- Next in thread: Regis: "Re: The importance of IVs"
- Reply: Regis: "Re: The importance of IVs"
- Reply: David Taylor: "Re: The importance of IVs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 27 Aug 2005 19:56:24 -0700
Regis wrote:
> >Wait till you grow up and be a big boy and play with MULTIPLE PROCESSES
> >AT ONCE.
>
> Hey Tommy boy...
> It was just a few days ago that I saw a post from you in which you
> revealed your age as being 23.
> If that's the case, then rest assured that I was playing with
> processors when you were in diapers, and was working on dual- and
> quad-processor systems when you were still playing with your
> Speak-n-Spell.
If you're such a mature and well experienced adult why do you
a) resort to acting like a 3 yr old when you don't get your way?
and
b) Make random strawman arguments that don't hold under the slighest
scruntiny?
I mean if you honestly are well experienced in proper multitasking
you'd not speak of "oh please..." you'd be agreeing that the MM in
windows is crap.
> >then unpack from my NIGHTLY BACKUP and be back up in all of about 145
> >seconds or so...
> >
> >So even if someone did write a virus for x86_64 it would have MINIMAL
> >impact.
>
> Let's see...
> Last time I was hit with a virus...was back in1990. Even then, the
> only reason my system was infected was because I accidentally left
> something running -- a virus that I myself was creating. Other than
> that...nope...haven't been affected by viruses because I'm not some
> dumbass who has to open every attachment from unknown sources, nor do
> I run any "Free Screen Savers" which act as background dialers to
> overseas phone sex lines. An ounce of common sense goes a long way..
The problem is why run as root anyways? Everyone totes windows as "so
easy to use" but then they NEVER SET IT UP RIGHT. How easy can it be
if nobody uses it right...
> >That's a loaded statement. Most windows installs run the user as
> >Administrator which means they can screw up the box trivially.
>
> Yeah...and most drivers can kill themselves (and others) if they drive
> a car without actually knowing how to drive a car.
> Ignorance and stupidity is not an excuse.
Yes, but saying "windows is easy to use properly" is a bit of a loaded
statement when the vast majority of windows users don't do it? This
stems from the fact that DOS was single user and so was windows until
recently.
How can we expect the users to do things right when they've been pushed
the "open to the world" mentality of how it's "easily done".
I mean I can read/write raw memory if I really want to. A quick "su"
to root and I can mmap() any physical address to my process. But I
have to CHOOSE to do that and I have to be root.
Windows really doesn't push the concept of a "root" user. The basic
accounts XP makes are sudo's for root and don't need passwords to
access the system privileges.
> >Not really since Linux [and Unix and BSD and ...] was written with
> >security in mind. Hence the multiple users, properly isolated
> >processes, ulimits, etc...
>
> Just because something was written with "security in mind" does not
> make it secure. Banks are designed with security in mind...and yet
> they're constantly being robbed. Just a couple weeks ago there was
> $65 million stolen from a bank in Brazil.
No, banks are designed to extract your money from you. Not to keep it
safe. That's what insurance is for.
If I wanted to tommorow I could walk into any open bank [well not
tommorow, it's sunday...] and basically tell the teller "give me your
money" and I'd get it.
Banks are not SECURE STORAGE.
> >Windows was written with $$$ and "fun to use" in mind since apparently
> >everyone is stupid and MUST be amused at all stages of their day...
>
> Anything based on NT was written with security and stability in mind.
> If you were a few years older, you'd know this from first-hand
> experience. Even you can't be so naive as to equate Windows 95/98 to
> Windows NT/2000.
XP is based on NT and still installs you as a sudo to root. This is
why you can install drivers without putting a root password in.
You'd know that if you knew what the heck you were talking about.
Tom
- Next message: Regis: "Re: The importance of IVs"
- Previous message: Regis: "Re: The importance of IVs"
- In reply to: Regis: "Re: The importance of IVs"
- Next in thread: Regis: "Re: The importance of IVs"
- Reply: Regis: "Re: The importance of IVs"
- Reply: David Taylor: "Re: The importance of IVs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
