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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <404096B6.2632.7CE2ABE1@localhost>
From: nick at virus-l.demon.co.uk (Nick FitzGerald)
Subject: And how long have buffer overflows been around?

Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu replied to Glenn_Everhart@...kone.com:

> 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....

Methinks you confuse "design" with "default configuration".

NT 3.1 had a reasonable security design at its core, but an OOTB  
installation produced a security configuration "compatible with 
Win3.x".

Regards,

Nick FitzGerald