Sujet : Re: xkcd: CrowdStrike
De : psperson (at) *nospam* old.netcom.invalid (Paul S Person)
Groupes : rec.arts.sf.written rec.arts.comics.stripsDate : 25. Jul 2024, 17:13:50
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <ort4ajp89mpnvumfe1era7f998ef8ph0hc@4ax.com>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
On 24 Jul 2024 23:19:33 -0000,
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
I saw an article where Microsoft was blaming the EU for forcing them
to allow 3rd-party access to the Kernal, which they claim is what
enabled the update to do bad things. If that is true, they may have a
point.
>
There is always third-party access to the kernel. In the Windows NT days
before Microsoft had figured out 1960s-style memory protection, any program
in user space could make changes to the kernel. And sometimes they
accidentally did.
If you say so.
Microsoft says otherwise.
Then again, it occurred to me a decade or two ago that Windows is
simply to big to actually test for regressions in any meaningful sense
-- hence the lack of quality control leading to occasional bad
"updates". And a bit later that the chances of anyone at Microsoft
actually knowing how Windows works was essentially 0.
So I'm not going to say "and they should know" because there is a good
chance that they have no idea at all and this assertion is pure
marketing.
What the EU forced Microsoft to do was to DOCUMENT the kernel so that
people could more reliably get third-party access.
How odd. I seem to remember them being required to allow third-party
programs to be loaded and selected over Microsoft programs. Leading to
such interesting experiences as buying a new computer, remove the
payment-required security package, and then simply rebooting to
activate Microsoft's own.
Sounds like rather more than just "documenting the kernel". But it
would explain the dearth of "Undocumented Windows" books covering the
more recent versions.
I gave up on paid 3rd-party virus scanners when I happened on one that
only hooked into the Windows security network (was recognized by it)
every other year (version). They also played fast-and-loose with their
invoices, including extra charges without bothering to inform you
until they were paid. My deduction was that they had two different
teams producing versions on two-year schedules and one team hooked
theirs into Windows security and the other did not. This also
explained the UI whiplash suffered when "updating".
-- "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,Who evil spoke of everyone but God,Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"