"With [the Win95] release, Apple was tested - and they failed miserably. Not only did I warn Apple to take 95 more seriously, I also accurately forecast the massive decline that would happen to them if they didn't do just that. The MS platform has changed dramatically and it is much greater than just the operating system these days. Apple, on the other hand, hasn't advanced nearly as much but they are predominantly consumer-based today and less vulnerable to this comparative weakness as a result. Just like the last time, they will largely leverage hardware this time, and, as before, they will be up against companies with resources that eclipse their own."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Are you even listening?
A standard user can NOT write to the Windows directory... PERIOD!
You HAVE to have admin privileges to be able to do such a thing. This has NOTHING to do with backwards compatability. The fact is, since writing to the Windows directory requires admin rights, it WILL come up and ask for a password (or just tell you no).
I suggest you actually use an NT system before spouting off such drivel.
Member since:2005-07-02
Total and utter BS. I'm a regular user on my work computer, which runs Windows 2000 (a "NT system", as you put it). I do not have Admin priviledges, as I've verified more than once by being refused installation of a program.
I just went into the WINNT directory and created a text file. It created the file and did not ask for any password whatsoever.
I suggest you actually use an NT system before spouting off such drivel.
Member since:
>>Also, Windows has system file protection. With this, even IF a program manages to replace a Windows file (the only real reason to put something in the Windows directory, short of merely hiding the file from people searching for it), SFP will either 1) replace the file automatically, or 2) replace the file after running sfc /scannow... all depending on how critical the file is.<<
Why not just make it so that the system directory is not writeable other than via the administrator account?
The answer is simple - backwards compatibility. This would break backwards compatibility. Therefore, Windows has this vulnerability, which needs to somehow be protected against. All malware needs to do here is to spoof the sfc /scannow command ... pretend to be a valid system .dll.
>>Now as far as Vista asking for passwords. If you are running as a standard user and an installer tries to do something that requires admin privlages (such as placing a file into the Windows directory), then Vista will come up and ask you for the admin password. The burden to do this is not on the installer app (if it were, THAT would be stupid), it is on Windows.<<
Err, no. Windows cannot tell if a given executable is a software installer or not. It can guess - installers often have names such as setup.exe or install.exe - but it cannot really tell. Someone could easily write an installer and call it newcoolstuff.exe or trojan.exe.
On Linux, installable packages are either special archives or archives of source code. In the first case a package manager program (such as dpkg, apt-get, aptitude or synaptic) must be run. In the scond case, "./configure&&make&&make install" must be run. In either case - one must be root to run these commands in order to install the packages.
Once again, the conclusion is - in order to maintain compatibility with older binary applications (typically those installed with a "setup.exe" method rather than with a .msi installer) - Windows often cannot actually tell when an attempt to install something is being made. Therefore it cannot universally know when to require (or ask for) a password to verify permission. Therefore, things are installable "externally to the system" by parties without first being asked for permission. Things are installable on Windows systems without the user or owner actually being aware it happened.
Windows security is borked from the outset.