1996-10-06 - RE: WINDOWS NT ????

Header Data

From: matthew@itconsult.co.uk (Matthew Richardson)
To: adamsc@io-online.com
Message Hash: fcacc29841aafae0b0f41f85359f64d391c98dff50997769b2459bea65856a1c
Message ID: <memo.961006113953.230A@itconsult.co.uk>
Reply To: <19961006044857578.AAA115@GIGANTE>
UTC Datetime: 1996-10-06 12:31:22 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 20:31:22 +0800

Raw message

From: matthew@itconsult.co.uk (Matthew Richardson)
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 20:31:22 +0800
To: adamsc@io-online.com
Subject: RE: WINDOWS NT ????
In-Reply-To: <19961006044857578.AAA115@GIGANTE>
Message-ID: <memo.961006113953.230A@itconsult.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 05 Oct 1996 07:57:22 -0700, John Fricker wrote:
> Okay, correct me if I'm wrong on this (as if you wouldn't...):
> 1. Microsoft markets NT with C2 security
> 2. Numerous industry magazines report that you can bypass NTFS file 
> security by booting off of a diskette and using NTFSDOS.
> 3. Numerous industry magazines (and I believe MS finally mentioned it 
> in some routine status update) all say that NT should now be considered
> C2 *ONLY* on machines w/o floppy drives.

Microsoft only claim C2 security when the machine is physically secured 
and not attached to any network.  Specifically NTFS makes no claim of any 
encryption and can thus be read by non-NT software.

Best wishes,
Matthew





Thread