To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"I find it highly improbable that there's a production OS out there that doesn't have exploitable bugs in it."
Well, that was wasted sarcasm.
"No. Why would word need to modify all my files when I'm only editing X?"
I have a hard time understanding this sentence.
If you mean that only certain document should be able to be modified by certain programs, well, that's one way to do it. Not a way that I think is practically usefull or feasable but one way nonetheless.
Presuming, of course, that there are no exploitable bugs in the authorized programs, that authorized program cant be called from other programs etc etc.
I have a hard time understanding this sentence.
If you mean that only certain document should be able to be modified by certain programs, well, that's one way to do it. Not a way that I think is practically usefull or feasable but one way nonetheless.
What's hard to understand about it? If I have a program and I want to open a single file with it, why should it be allowed to modify any other file? In any event, this method is far more practical than what you're suggesting: how does one "authorize" a program? How can the authorizer be sure that said program isn't malicious in any way? In short: they can't.




Member since:
2005-11-27
Good thing this isn't an issue with every other OS.
I find it highly improbable that there's a production OS out there that doesn't have exploitable bugs in it.
Good thing this isn't an issue with every other OS.
In fact, it's a problem that cant be solved at the OS level since the user needs to be able to work with his/her own files.
No. Why would word need to modify all my files when I'm only editing X?