1996-10-05 - RE: WINDOWS NT ????

Header Data

From: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
To: John Fricker <jfricker@vertexgroup.com>
Message Hash: b8860a780aab581982728b53922d3cb7e011d6afd31318748772443f8e92b6e7
Message ID: <199610050744.AAA21505@dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-10-05 09:48:24 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 17:48:24 +0800

Raw message

From: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 17:48:24 +0800
To: John Fricker <jfricker@vertexgroup.com>
Subject: RE: WINDOWS NT ????
Message-ID: <199610050744.AAA21505@dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 05:43 PM 10/4/96 -0700, John Fricker <jfricker@vertexgroup.com> wrote:
>Security in NT can be defeated by any clever, out of work, bored, 
>NT device driver author who brews up a stealth device driver replacement 
>(perhaps a COM port improvement) that could run amok on the file system or
>basically do anything. 

Good point; if you can talk somebody into installing device drivers,
most security guarantees go out the window, and if you can talk
a system administrator (i.e. "the user") into installing unexamined code,
he's lost.  And on PCs, users install unexamined stuff all the time.

>Of course, any clever device driver developer is making enough money to 
>not be bored nor even consider writing a backdoor into a driver. Right?

Definitely....

#			Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
America's Open Presidential Debate - Beyond Dole and Clinton!
<A href="http://gate.net/~bdcollar/bbe/debate.htm">Tuesday, Oct. 8th 8:00 PM
EDT</a>






Thread