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
| ||
|
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists