Professional Web Applications Themes

Is Windows with Cygwin Unix? - Linux / Unix Administration

Colin B. wrote:   >> >> Geoff> This middleware doesn't solve the underlying security >> Geoff> problems that arise in the Windows platform that just don't >> Geoff> exist in an operating system that is Unix all the way down >> Geoff> to the bare metal. >> >> Unfortunately (and I realize I'm attacking a straw man here), Unix's >> security model lacks Windows' purported flaws because it does so much >> less than Windows.[/ref] > > (snip) > > Let me just stop right there. > > Unix has always had a security model. It is now being extended ...

  1. #41

    Default Re: Is Windows with Cygwin Unix?

    Colin B. wrote:
     
    >>
    >> Geoff> This middleware doesn't solve the underlying security
    >> Geoff> problems that arise in the Windows platform that just don't
    >> Geoff> exist in an operating system that is Unix all the way down
    >> Geoff> to the bare metal.
    >>
    >> Unfortunately (and I realize I'm attacking a straw man here), Unix's
    >> security model lacks Windows' purported flaws because it does so much
    >> less than Windows.[/ref]
    >
    > (snip)
    >
    > Let me just stop right there.
    >
    > Unix has always had a security model. It is now being extended via ACLs,
    > RBAC, and similar methods. These are being added to an existing structure,
    > not added to a lack of structure. It's not that the traditional Unix model
    > doesn't suffer from all of the Windows flaws because it does so little,
    > it's that the Windows flaws come about from applying discrete (and
    > massively complex) controls onto a system that previously had none.[/ref]

    When did Windows NT have no security?
     

    Please describe the flaw in the design.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Guest

  2. #42

    Default Re: Is Windows with Cygwin Unix?

    J. Clarke wrote:
    [snip] 
    >
    > Please describe the flaw in the design.[/ref]


    Please don't take this too seriously, it is dated and $MS has made it more
    difficult since this was discovered. But even still, dig deep enough and
    work hard enough and this flaw can still be pinned down. Not something the
    average user will ever be capable of...

    http://security.tombom.co.uk/shatter.html

    And $MS rebuttal:

    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/security/news/htshat.mspx?mfr=true

    As you can see it's yesterday's news. This is in the Windows architecture,
    and I'm real interested to see if it can still be found in Vista. Just my
    $.02 - not worth much, just a little tongue in cheek. :-)

    -Jason


    Jason Guest

  3. #43

    Default Re: Is Windows with Cygwin Unix?

    On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, J. Clarke wrote:
     

    Since day one, judging by the amount of money McAfee and Symantec
    make on Windoze antivirus software.
     

    In short: "features before security". The fact that Gates had to
    write a memo reminding his engineers that security was important
    speaks volumes.

    --
    Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

    President,
    Rite Online Inc.

    Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
    URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
    Rich Guest

  4. #44

    Default Re: Is Windows with Cygwin Unix?

    On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:16:52 -0500
    "J. Clarke" <net.invalid> wrote:
     
    >
    > When did Windows NT have no security?[/ref]

    When it could be, and was routinely, installed on FAT volumes. Or when,
    as with XP Home, users are created with Administrator privileges.

    And of course, because it tried to be compatible with Windows (3.x,9x)
    which had no security at all, without providing a decent integration of
    these applications in the NT security model, it forced users to run
    with Administrator privileges.
     
    >
    > Please describe the flaw in the design.[/ref]

    It's far too complex.

    Take care,

    --
    Stefaan
    --
    As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning,
    and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh
    Stefaan Guest

  5. #45

    Default Re: Is Windows with Cygwin Unix?

    >>>>> "Casper" == Casper H S Dik <COM> writes:

    Casper> You should not overlook Solaris auditing which is fairly
    Casper> complete and has existed for quite some time. With RBAC
    Casper> (Role Based Access Control) in Solaris 8 and privileges in
    Casper> Solaris 10, we are moving forward.

    I have seen Solaris' security features, included Trusted Solaris,
    RBAC, and BSM auditing, but I haven't had an opportunity to use them
    in a production setting.

    Best wishes,
    Matthew

    --
    jsoffron: I'm generally pretty high on national defense...
    Mr. Bad Example: Careful...it's a gateway policy. Before you know it,
    you'll be mainlining the hard stuff like trade agreements.
    jsoffron: Too late...I've been freebasing Nafta all day... Sweet,
    sweet NAFTA.
    - As seen on Slashdot
    Matthew Guest

  6. #46

    Default Re: Is Windows with Cygwin Unix?

    "Orbs All Over" <com> wrote: 
     [/ref]

    Indeed you do.
     

    Interesting, 42 trolled threads started, in only one of
    which she ever bothered to participate again.

    She is the very model of a modern major troller girl.

    xanthian.

    Kent Guest

  7. #47

    Default Re: Is Windows with Cygwin Unix?

    Dave Uhring wrote: 
    >

    >>
    >>Greetings:
    >> 1. If youreread my original post on this subject you are the one making
    >>the error. Yes I have read the site and I have one question for you is
    >>Solaris 2.0 an UNIX?[/ref]
    >
    >
    > At the time that Solaris 2.0 was released there was no published standard
    > specification for UNIX. Why would you even concern yourself with an OS
    > released fourteen years ago and long ago EOL'd. But since Solaris 2.0 was
    > a joint project between AT&T and Sun Microsystems one could reasonably
    > conclude that it really was a UNIX as defined by AT&T at the time.
    >
    > And yes, I reread your OP and you have nothing to say about an ancient
    > version of Solaris, only an ignorant assertion that Solaris is not UNIX.
    > I have fully refuted your assertion that Solaris is not UNIX and you
    > continue with an abysmally futile and deliberate ignorance.
    >
    > *Plonk*
    >[/ref]
    OK Dave:
    I know that I have been absent for a little while so I think it is
    apropriate to set some matters straight. First let us go back to the
    original comment which set us on this course. You claim that my
    ststement is incorrect, what I propose is that is that when attacking my
    ststement I would prefer that you would use the whole statement that I
    made. Next to the question which I asked you, I don't care if Solaris
    2.0 was EOL'ed or if was in existance before the current onwers came in
    existence, was it a UNIX yes or no? After your previous responce I
    think that your best responce is "I don't know". As for your "Plonk"
    comment I think that the best thing for you isn to press the flusher
    handle down.
    John Guest

  8. #48

    Default Re: Is Windows with Cygwin Unix?

    ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
    On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:43:05 +0000, Tristan Miller
    <com> wrote: 
    >
    > No they couldn't. Trademarks (at least in the US) are specific to a
    > certain market sector. The holders of the Unix trademark for operating
    > systems have no authority over use of that trademark for baked beans, and
    > in fact could be specifically enjoined by antitrust laws from marketing
    > Unix-brand baked beans.
    >[/ref]
    It's not ever likely to happen in the real world, but Unix brand baked
    beans could be an example of cross-promotion, like a breakfast cereal
    named after a cartoon, or like Ford's Harley-Davidson pickup trucks (I
    don't follow business news that closely, did Ford merge with H-D?)


    --
    "Debian: no hats or reptiles were harmed in the making of this distribution=
    .."
    -- Paul Slootman
    Bill Guest

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Problem running native windows Postgres 8 pg_dump etc on cygwin from bash
    By Magnus Hagander in forum PostgreSQL / PGSQL
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 14th, 02:51 PM
  2. Problem running native windows Postgres 8 pg_dump etc on cygwin frombash
    By laurie.burrow@powerconv.alstom.com in forum PostgreSQL / PGSQL
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 14th, 01:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139