[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <24869.1176054073@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 13:41:13 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: C Q <kyle.c.quest@...il.com>
Cc: funsec@...uxbox.org, Randall M <randallm@...mail.com>,
full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [funsec] Vista Protected Processes Bypassed
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:07:47 EDT, C Q said:
>
> Overall, it's not really worse than what you'd have with XP...
> I'm not a big fan of Vista, but this is definitely not what
> people make it to be.
That protection bit isn't what people make it to be either, which is
the whole point.
Quite often, the *real* security issue is that the protection a given feature
*actually* provides by design isn't the security that people *think* it
provides. For example, some of us may remember a while ago, when there was
a whole flurry of activity regarding TCP sequence numbers and RST packets.
Turned out that in fact, TCP has *always* worked that way, in that an RST
doesn't have to match exactly, it only needs to be inside the window. When
RTT*bandwidth products were low and windows were small, in a 2**32 sequence
space, the distinction between "match" and "within 16K" was easily overlooked.
The community just needed a slap upside the head, because with multi-megabyte
windows on today's high-speed links, the distinction *is* important....
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists