Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Jan 2007 20:11 UTC, submitted by sogabe
Zeta 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.
Thread beginning with comment 198998
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not secure
by helf on Sat 6th Jan 2007 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Not secure"
helf
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"
rayiner 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

RE[4]: Not secure
by helf on Sun 7th Jan 2007 03:02 in reply to "RE[3]: Not secure"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

No, but BeOSs memory protection was just as shitty. I don't know all the details, but I know a BeOS coder that told me and showed me several very easy ways of mucking with another programs memory space and crashing it and the whole OS.

anyways, windows 9x is mostly dead and hopefully haiku will address a lot of these issues.

Reply Parent Score: 2