Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 17:52 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 345248
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
" This is very dangerous then.
No it isn't. launchd is in control.. how safe Windows XP has been since Service Pack 2.
No, it isn't neither. Several security wholes demonstrated that this is not true. " The premise of SRS is SECURE, whether you say it is or not. The fact that bugs have been found and fixed do not make the blind faith in MAC's implementation of security any better.
RE[4]: I blame Apple
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 24th Jan 2009 15:57
in reply to "RE[3]: I blame Apple"
When folks and PC bloggers figure out SRS policy you will realize how safe Windows XP has been since Service Pack 2.
That would certainly be nice, although I won't be holding my breath expecting it. Even as far back as Win2k, you could have reasonably-secure system just by running it with a normal user-level account - but from experience, even that is more hassle than most non-technical home users are willing to put up with.






Member since:
2008-08-26
This is very dangerous then. I have my Windows XP system configured in such a way that an executable can not both read and write from the same directories. In other words email me a virus and it won't execute. Viruses simply do not run under my username. NO exe can run under any directory that I can write to. When folks and PC bloggers figure out SRS policy you will realize how safe Windows XP has been since Service Pack 2.
Edited 2009-01-24 03:23 UTC