In article <2576207.0ZFx6cJCvB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> ____/ AB on Sunday 12 August 2007 15:57 : \____
>
> > On 2007-08-12, flyer <flyer@xxxxxxxxx> claimed:
> >>
> >>
> >> "An unpatched flaw in drivers from ATI creates a means to smuggle malware
> >> past improved security defences in the latest version of Windows and into
> >> the Vista kernel."
> >>
> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/10/ati_driver_snafu/
> >
> > Vista has "improved security defences" added on? What happened, did the
> > price of tissue papaer drop or something?
>
> See, that's the problem. Security should not be added /on/? Security comes from
> the bottom of the stack.
Yeah, but if you put some security at the bottom of the windows stack, it
would become *squashed* like a train over a marshmallow.
Sort of like a pearl under a big steaming cow pie.
|
|
