Looks promising
voska | 09/22/06
|
 
Looks like they are working it out
Linux User 1 | 09/22/06
|
|
Even if it was vulnerable, it would still not have access to your system
georgeou | 09/22/06
|
Unless, of course...
Ed Bott  | 09/22/06
|
Well, then you would deserve any drive-by malware you get
georgeou | 09/22/06
|
|
I'm not interested in blaming people
Ed Bott | 09/23/06
|
|
Can you say Darwin?
No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/23/06
|
|
Sorta wonder what took them so long to implement this.
B.O.F.H. | 09/22/06
|
|
What are you talking about?
toadlife | 09/22/06
|
|
MLS has been there since 2003.
B.O.F.H. | 09/22/06
|
|
Oh, you mean MAC
toadlife | 09/22/06
|
|
Read up on SELinux (or SEBSD) and MLS.
B.O.F.H. | 09/22/06
|
|
Thanks
toadlife | 09/22/06
|
|
Yes what exactly did they copy from Linux do tell
jimk_z | 09/23/06
|
|
MLS (Multi Level Security) from the NSA SE LSM.
B.O.F.H. | 09/23/06
|
|
XP had no firewall and all services enabled...
jinko | 09/23/06
|
|
Sorry, you're wrong
Ed Bott | 09/23/06
|
|
But all you have done is show that Vista doesn't share this bug with XP.
Zogg | 09/22/06
|
|
No, not at all
Ed Bott | 09/23/06
|
|
One datapoint is not statistically significant.
Zogg | 09/23/06
|
|
That's not at all what I said
Ed Bott | 09/23/06
|
|
But then why expect the new code to have bugs in common with the old?
Zogg | 09/23/06
|
|
I said rewritten, not started from scratch
Ed Bott | 09/23/06
|
|
The buggy code was either fixed, or it was replaced.
Zogg | 09/23/06
|
|
You can also have Multi-layered security protection in Windows XP too!
rh0 | 09/23/06
|
|
Seems like an awful lot to have a secure
Linux User 147560 | 09/23/06
|
|
Good direction ..The reason why symantec is wrong
jimk_z | 09/23/06
|
|
Well Said
Alber1690 | 09/25/06
|
|
EULA GATE---
BALTHOR | 09/25/06
|
Doc delivers the scoop on today's enterprise content management, printer maintenance, and all other issues related to document management. It's the DocuMentor Blog.
