[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <200402131611.i1DGBaMw024319@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:11:36 -0500
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Allen/gore/SlackWareWolf <goreBOFH@...cast.net>
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com, full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com,
Thor Larholm <thor@...x.com>
Subject: Re: Re: W2K source "leaked"?
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:06:41 EST, Allen/gore/SlackWareWolf said:
> I think they should release the source for NT anyway. They
> are pretty much dropping it, and they say it is so badly
> made they can hardly fix it, well, why not let the REAL
> hackers out there who can make an OS, take a look at it.
> Maybe they are a little nervouse? Maybe people would see it
> was badly made? Wither way I know ALOT of people who STILL
> swear by NT. With proper skill, NT can be made hard. 2,000
> is similar, and I think it would be great if they finally
> said "Ok, fine, here is the source".
They can't do that because of the truly astounding overlap between
the NT codebase and the Win200[03]/XP codebase. Think MS04-07, and
ask if they can afford to have NT code out there.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists