All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
How to make your Windows machine more stable and secure
muzzy:
goddamnit you just love twisting words do you? if i could punch you over the internet i damn sure would. right now. you just refuse to understand what i'm saying, don't you?
your comment about the word definitions is heavily offensive. i have no idea why i'm bothering to reply to you at all, since you clearly show NO INTENT TO DISCUSS THE SUBJECT but instead just want to mock me. you keep saying things that have nothing to do with the subject, and are not related to it except through a common item (in this case, IE). it makes my blood boil.
then you try to thwart the discussion by making some statements, again unrelated to the subject, and say that my on-topic discussion doesn't address these off-topic issues. no shit, sherlock! IE security issues have nothing to do with "integration", thus my views on the integration don't address security.
and finally, the last paragraph in your previous post, you ask "bad html causes windows system security problems?". You obviously had no fscking clue about what I said in the text you're replying to. That, or you're defining "system security" to mean something else than it means. If application uses a library which lets you do more than you intend, and then you use that library, it's not a system security issue. It's an application issue. That application acting like that can be a system security issue, but ITS NOT FAULT OF THE LIBRARY!
... time to go get something cold to drink, i need to cool down. if you keep replying with your bullshit, i wont bother continuing this discussion further.
Orethrius:
I'll be brief in the rationale behind a microkernel implementation: a module "integrated" (cutely quoted, as you put it) so tightly with the system kernel that the system cannot run properly without it is a security breach. Likewise, a secure module - by design - cannot integrate with the system kernel. Forget for a moment that LiteStep and whatnot exist, we're talking about the rationale of the LCD (lowest common denominator) - the most clueless possible user. They're not going to take the time to remove IE and secure the system like they should when they're told the opposite is "just fine" at every juncture.
Aloone_Jonez:
You need IE to do system updates, and I would presume that the IE library is a different module than the one that's displays the Internet Exlporer window. They could easily make a different update manager and at least romove the code responsible for displaying the Internet Explorer window. You can't tell me that they didn't start shipping Windows with Internet Explorer to put Netscape out of bussiness and to remove all of the competetion.
muzzy:
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---I'll be brief in the rationale behind a microkernel implementation: a module "integrated" (cutely quoted, as you put it) so tightly with the system kernel that the system cannot run properly without it is a security breach. Likewise, a secure module - by design - cannot integrate with the system kernel. Forget for a moment that LiteStep and whatnot exist, we're talking about the rationale of the LCD (lowest common denominator) - the most clueless possible user. They're not going to take the time to remove IE and secure the system like they should when they're told the opposite is "just fine" at every juncture.
--- End quote ---
First of all, Windows NT isn't exactly pure microkernel. Second, neither the native core kernel, nor the win32 executive subsystem depends on IE for functionality. The whole system up to that level works great without IE. The issues only come on top of win32, in the actual shell implementation.
Now, you're doing a nasty logic error there, I think. You are assuming that the system is not going to be configured and the defaults are used. If you make such assumption, you cannot conclude the same thing and have it mean anything. If you assume that user won't install alternative browser, then it means nothing to conclude that it's unlikely that alternative browser gets installed.
So, what's your point exactly and what are you trying to say? I'm not quite following your thoughts with either the microkernel thing nor the idiot user thing. You're talking about system core design with the microkernel issues, yet you refer to the whole userland and user experience as a "system" as well when you talk of IE. I don't see how they relate, as the scope of "system" is different for both cases.
Calum:
--- Quote from: muzzy ---goddamnit you just love twisting words do you?
--- End quote ---
not as much as you enjoy spouting bullshit (apparently)
--- Quote ---if i could punch you over the internet i damn sure would. right now. you just refuse to understand what i'm saying, don't you?
--- End quote ---
nope, i don't, but you appear not to be too keen on talking what is known to the rest of us as "sense".
--- Quote ---your comment about the word definitions is heavily offensive.
--- End quote ---
not really, it's a rough summation of your attitude towards defining what you say. I find it offensive that you continue to say generalised and contrary comments while expecting people to instinctively know what you are talking about. now for a REAL offensive comment, try this:
Go and fuck yourself you moron.
See? totally different from what i said before.
--- Quote ---i have no idea why i'm bothering to reply to you at all,
--- End quote ---
well you'd be best placed to answer that, don't you think? if you don't know, i certainly don't!
--- Quote ---since you clearly show NO INTENT TO DISCUSS THE SUBJECT but instead just want to mock me.
--- End quote ---
firstly, mocking you is a lot of fun, however i only do it as a byproduct of attempting to communicate with you. Your communication skills seem to be throttled one way, so you can output a tremendous amount of information (or a good imitation thereof) but you're not too good at taking it in. contrary to your accusations, i'm happy to discuss any subject here, so long as i know something about it, so pick up your toys and let's get back to it.
--- Quote ---you keep saying things that have nothing to do with the subject, and are not related to it except through a common item (in this case, IE). it makes my blood boil.
--- End quote ---
oh so terribly sorry. do people in finland stick to the point 100% of the time? if so, then why have you just wasted an entire paragraph to air your frustrations publicly?
--- Quote ---then you try to thwart the discussion by making some statements, again unrelated to the subject, and say that my on-topic discussion doesn't address these off-topic issues.
--- End quote ---
jeez! usually when you start a new paragraph, it means you are finished with the point at hand. why do i have a feeling of deja vu here?
--- Quote ---no shit, sherlock! IE security issues have nothing to do with "integration", thus my views on the integration don't address security.
--- End quote ---
aha! now some sort of substance (finally). ok, smartass, SOME people think that the two ARE connected, and you getting your underwear in a knot is NOT going to change their OPINION. get it?
--- Quote ---and finally, the last paragraph in your previous post, you ask "bad html causes windows system security problems?". You obviously had no fscking clue about what I said in the text you're replying to.
--- End quote ---
oh how dumb of me. HEY EVERYBODY, COME AND LAUGH AT ME, I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND ONE OF MUZZY'S POINTS! how is this a problem? simply explain yourself C-L-E-A-R-L-Y and this problem will disappear of its own accord. do you seriously think you can waltz onto these forums, spew a load of confusing shit about how windows is the best operating system (except windows xp, and windows ME and every other windows up to windows ME) and expect everybody to understand what your unreasoning gobbledygook means? not everybody will, surprisingly, and even more surprisingly, i am one of them.
--- Quote ---That, or you're defining "system security" to mean something else than it means.
--- End quote ---
whatever. but i think you are dangerously close to going off topic here.
--- Quote ---If application uses a library which lets you do more than you intend, and then you use that library, it's not a system security issue. It's an application issue. That application acting like that can be a system security issue, but ITS NOT FAULT OF THE LIBRARY!
--- End quote ---
ok, again, this is NOT what i was talking about. how come if i don't understand you, it's my fault, but if YOU don't understand ME... it's ALSO my fault?
dumbass.
--- Quote ---... time to go get something cold to drink,
--- End quote ---
i would recommend sulphuric acid.
--- Quote ---i need to cool down. if you keep replying with your bullshit, i wont bother continuing this discussion further.
--- End quote ---
oh no! how would i live with myself.
the same does not go for you, i actually enjoy replying to your bullshit, even though it saddens me that you have gone so far off topic in this "post" of yours.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version