full-disclosure - 70 million computers are using Windows 98rightnow

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: <e024ccca0607161541k7a9271c4vb6b0a7400f6f74b0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun Jul 16 23:42:07 2006
From: dudevanwinkle at gmail.com (Dude VanWinkle)
Subject: 70 million computers are using Windows
	98rightnow

On 7/16/06, Eliah Kagan <degeneracypressure@...il.com> wrote:
> On 7/12/06, Dude VanWinkle wrote:
> > and for the record, win9x doesnt have the option for security. no
> > ACL's, file system doesnt support them, doesnt that make the idea of
> > securing it moot?
>
> Win9x OSes (including Windows ME) are not true multi-user operating
> systems. They do not implement separation of priviledge (and they
> don't, in any real sense, implement protected memory either, because
> the system memory space is open to maintain compatibility with the
> Win3.1 way of doing system calls). That does not mean that they are
> *insecure*. It means that they are insecure if you allow untrusted
> users or execute untrusted code.

isnt browsing the web to sites with flash, java, asp, php, etc,
allowing an untrusted user to run code on your machine?

I think so given the rate at which exploits are released for all the
above protocols, and especially considering the fact they will all go
unpatched from now on.

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but doesnt win9x have file
shares? Does that require authentication?

-JP<who has never used win9x>