OSNews > Thread > "RE: Not secure" by rayiner

Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Jan 2007 20:11 UTC, submitted by sogabe

MauriceK writes about security in the ZETA operating system. Apparently magnussoft, sole distributor of ZETA, makes security claims [on the German version] that with ZETA "it is not possible to examine a system from the outside without notifying the user due to the architecture of this software." MauriceK seems to think differently, and even gives examples on how code can be executed without the user's knowledge in ZETA. In related news, BeUnited is no more. Instant update: the discussion concerning security just made its appearance on the Haiku m-l.

1 39 Comment(s)

http://osne.ws/d0q

Thread beginning with comment 198849
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.

RE: Not secure

by rayiner on Fri 5th Jan 2007 23:00 UTC in reply to "Not secure"

Member since:
2005-07-06

BeOS security was a step ahead of the other desktop competition when Microsoft has shipping a Win9x kernel and Apple was shipping System 8, but that was a decade ago. The only major thing that BeOS R5 had over those OSs was protected memory. Otherwise, it was a single-user system with no permissions checking to speak of. Quite a far cry from either the NT, BSD, or Linux kernels...

Edited 2007-01-05 23:01

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Not secure

by helf on Sat 6th Jan 2007 14:25 in reply to "RE: Not secure"

Member since:
2005-07-06

dude, Windows 95 has/had protected Memory. and I dare say it did a better job of it than BeOS ever did. And this is coming from a (ex)BeOS lover.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Not secure

by rayiner on Sat 6th Jan 2007 14:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Not secure"

Member since:
2005-07-06

Win9x had a 1GB shared area (world readable/writable) in which it mapped critical system DLLs and memory-mapped files. AFAIK, BeOS never did anything this blatently insecure.

Reply Parent Score: 4