Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 13:51 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Privacy, Security, Encryption Fresh from winning the PWN2OWN contest yesterday, Charlie Miller has been interviewed by ZDNet. He talks about how Mac OS X is a very simple operating system to exploit due to the lack of any form of anti-exploit features. He also explains that the underlying operating system is much more important in creating a successful exploit than the bowser, why Chrome is so hard to hack, and many other things.
Thread beginning with comment 354333
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Operating System Security
by siride on Sat 21st Mar 2009 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Operating System Security"
siride
Member since:
2006-01-02

IE was never in the kernel. I don't know where people get this kind of stuff from.

Reply Parent Score: 4

MobyTurbo Member since:
2005-07-08

IE was never in the kernel. I don't know where people get this kind of stuff from.
It was never in the NT kernel, i.e. not in any recent version of Windows. It was in Windows 98. Sorry.

Reply Parent Score: 1

siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Yeah, where exactly? KERNEL.EXE? No. vmm386.exe? Very unlikely. Yep, still a DLL somewhere. I guess since the concept of kernel was a little bit more nebulous in Win9x, you could stretch really far and say that IE was "in the kernel", but that's not saying much.

I found only one reference while googling that said IE was in the kernel and it was some rant page that gave no proof that IE was ever in the kernel. No Wikipedia pages gave any indication that IE was ever in the kernel (they did mention, as do any other pages on the subject, that IE was tied in with the OS, but the OS is broader than the kernel). If you can find me a legitimate link that shows IE was in the kernel in Win9x, I would greatly appreciate it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Kalessin Member since:
2007-01-18

Some people seem to think that because Microsoft said that it was integral to the OS and couldn't be removed that must mean that it was in the kernel. I'd say that the Windows login is integral to the OS, but there's no way that that's in the kernel. I don't see why IE would have to be in the kernel for Microsoft to claim that it was integral and unremovable.

Now, granted I don't know what is and isn't in the kernel in any particular version of Windows, but I'd be very surprised if an internet browser was ever in any kernel of any operating system.

Reply Parent Score: 1

middleware Member since:
2006-05-11

It's hard to prove the architecture of a proprietary software, especially like Microsoft. So be cautious to say *no way* to any method Microsoft would do in. Even when something are installed separately, it may in the kernel. VM software are installed separately, but it is usually part of them has to be running in kernel.

I think you do not have to be surprised if Microsoft put anything that obviously should be user-space feature into kernel, because they can and they did. They internally claim to each other it is for performance sake and sometimes that misconception even leak to marketing.

Again, I don't know if IE is in or not in kernel, but I denounce the way too quick to say no way.

Reply Parent Score: 1