[67365] in Cypherpunks
RE: WINDOWS NT ????
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Fricker)
Sat Oct 5 01:19:22 1996
To: stewarts@ix.netcom.com
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
From: John Fricker <jfricker@vertexgroup.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1996 17:43:52 -0700
>Bill Stewart (stewarts@ix.netcom.com) said something about Re: WINDOWS NT =
???? on or about 10/4/96 7:44 AM
>At 07:47 PM 10/3/96 +1030, you wrote:
>>hi,
>> is Windows NT secured system ?
>
>Windows 4.x moves the graphics/windowing system into Ring 0,
>where the "secure" parts of the kernel are. Bad.
>This means graphics bugs can make the kernel insecure or crash.
>I don't trust it, especially because Windows 3.1 crashes all the time
>for me, and stupid bugs make Windows 3.1 behave badly for me.
>So if they put the window system in the kernel, I don't trust it.
>End of message
Graphics bugs will not crash the system since graphics bugs still run in pr=
otected mode. (ie bugs in applications that screw up GDI).
Buggy video drivers though can bring the system down.=20
But this does not affect security, only stability.
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 d=
o anything. Of course, any clever device driver developer is making enough =
money to not be bored nor even consider writing a backdoor into a driver. R=
ight?
--j
