full-disclosure - Re: Microsoft Patents the "sudo" command

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: <9B9E7EA67E1B1342B2D25F3FD1B3293002EE18CA@BE35.exg3.exghost.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:25:52 -0500
From: "Larry Seltzer" <larry@...ryseltzer.com>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Patents the "sudo" command

>
http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-Microsoft-patent-may-put-
Linux-security-components-at-risk-857848.html

>>From the article:

> This behaviour is very similar to that of PolicyKit, with the only 
> apparent difference being that PolicyKit requires applications to 
> request privileges, whereas the 7,617,350 patent allows the operating 
> system to block a privileged action and then offer the user a way to 
> raise their privileges.

I'm not a fan of software patents, but this seems to be a meaningful
difference. Apps aren't written for Windows to request privilege
elevation and a system which handles it automatically is a better one.

And as the article says, the claim in the subject line of this thread is
nonsense. It's obvious to anyone who reads the patent, which is a very
short one.

Larry Seltzer
Contributing Editor, PC Magazine
larry_seltzer@...fdavis.com 
http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/