full-disclosure - And how long have buffer overflows been around?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <200402271643.i1RGhVia007972@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu)
Subject: And how long have buffer overflows been around? 

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:33:27 EST, Glenn_Everhart@...kone.com  said:
> There were rumors that the NT kernel was originally called Mica at DEC
> and that the code was in fact brought bodily to Microsoft, having 
> been originally designed to be a VMS followon. If that is true you could
> say that the security design was in fact that of VMS V1, which dates

The only problem with that theory is that VMS *had* a security design, and
there isn't one in NT.  The only design overlap there is that Microsoft got
some of the VMS design team to come on board for Win/NT.  NT got stuck with
having to be backward-combatable with Win 3.1, and you can fill in the blanks
from there....

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20040227/94476a65/attachment.bin