Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 25th Sep 2012 22:40 UTC, submitted by Anonymous Coward
Windows NeoSmart Technologies has released a new version of EasyBCD, the free bootloader editor for Windows which supports Windows 8, the latest GRUB2 distributions, EFI machines, and comes with all-new support for 13 different languages. If you have a Windows-based multiboot machine, you really need EasyBCD. It's a fantastic application.
Thread beginning with comment 536565
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Good link
by moondevil on Wed 26th Sep 2012 17:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good link"
Member since:

Yes, we can.

But this only makes the other platforms, ignored platforms, not more secure.

See what is happening to Mac OS X, now that it has a user base big enough to attract attention.

Or how easy it is to hack certain Android mobile phones.

And let's not forget if the operating system does not make use of proper sandboxing, an owned process will have all the rights as the user account it runs under.

This is enough to make your "My Documents", $HOME, /Users/username visible to the world.

We will only get more secure OS, when the mainstream OS finally adopt microkernel architectures, with enforced sandboxing for all applications.

Additionally moving away from C to more strong typed languages without buffer overflows by design, would help reducing the amount of attack vectors.

Of course, once you car manipulate assembly, the language used to compile the code does not matter that much. So my last remark can be compensated by making static analysis tools part of the standard compiler toolchain.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Good link
by Neolander on Wed 26th Sep 2012 20:14 in reply to "RE[3]: Good link"
Neolander Member since:

And there it is my turn to fully agree with you.

In my pessimistic opinion, no current OS should be considered to be truly secure. There only are those that attract cracker attention, and those that don't.

Mobile OSs do attempt to take some steps toward a proper security infrastructure (think Android's permission system), but implementation is often so piss-poor that users still have to blindly rely on some godlike sysadmin's opinion about what is secure and what isn't. Which is some truly awful denaturation of what the personal computing concept is supposed to stand for.

Edited 2012-09-26 20:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Good link
by moondevil on Thu 27th Sep 2012 06:34 in reply to "RE[4]: Good link"
moondevil Member since:

This is why I am following how Mac OS X sandbox model, or WinRT picks up in the mainstream OSs.

We already have capabilities in BSD, AppArmor and SELinux in GNU/Linux, but few take advantage of it.

It is also nice to see Minix3 picking up speed, and Hurd still progress, although very slowly.

All these sandboxing mechanisms can probably be used for nefarious purposes, by the mainstream OS vendors. On the other hand we really need to improve security beyond the basic user/group model most OS offer.

Reply Parent Score: 2