akonsu wrote: > > in my understanding a proper implementation does not require any service > packs. in other words: if one implements something that later requires a > service pack, this is not a proper implementation.
Exactly. (And I don't seem to hear a lot about keeping OpenBSD patched up-to-date;) > > > 2006/6/2, misiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > akonsu schrieb: > > > no way. trust me. ;) > > > > > > > > > We'll see, like many other security features in Windows, if they > > implement > > >> it *properly*. Now, would you trust Linux to implememt it properly? > > >> > > >> DS > > > > > > > > > > > You guys funny! > > But to remind all you, with Servicepack 2 for XP, it is unpossible to > > execute injected code... > > Or did I understand something wrong? What you misunderstand is security. Probably the most accurate guage of effective security is the price for compromised computers. Last I heard it was five cents. I'm not sure, but I think I could do better with incredibly bad security. If there's only one hole, plugging it can make you a hero. Like the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dyke. For security, it's not where you are strongest that matters, it's where you are weakest. > > > > m
