tenser wrote to McDoob <=-
There's that. There's also this idea that tons of random
code runs before the OS even loads; "secure boot" is a cute
fiction with UEFI.
My understanding is that it's even worse than that. From what I've read the UEFI boot process uses MS-DOS.
But the the only truthful sentance that includes the words "Microsoft"
and "secure" is "Microsoft products are inherently not secure."
But the the only truthful sentance that includes the words "Microsoft"
and "secure" is "Microsoft products are inherently not secure."
tenser wrote to Dr. What <=-
MS-DOS isn't used at all here, but DXE applications
often ship as Windows PE executables (which themselves
are based on COFF, which came out of System V Unix).
That's not true. MSFT has some really crackerjack people
working on Windows, and has produced some very nice research
work in security.
Good to know. When I played around in it, it had a MS-DOS look-and-feel to me (keep in mind that was only 1 system that FORCED me to have to
deal with UEFI to get Linux loaded).
That's not true. MSFT has some really crackerjack people
working on Windows, and has produced some very nice research
work in security.
That may be the case. But there's only so much a great architect can do if the ground he's building on is weak.
I've had to work with Windows for many decades now and while I've certainly seen improvement here, Windows "security" remains baroque and something tacked on afterwards.
Sysop: | CyberNix |
---|---|
Location: | London, UK |
Users: | 22 |
Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
Uptime: | 08:31:17 |
Calls: | 892 |
Files: | 4,436 |
Messages: | 669,210 |