Trustworthy Computing through Trustworthy Practices

Because we can Trustworthy Computing through Trustworthy Practices | debt solutions

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:51:55 GMT

PingBack from http://debtsolutionsnow.info/story.php?id=11432

Because we can Trustworthy Computing through Trustworthy Practices | Green Tea Fat Burner

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:12:13 GMT

PingBack from http://greenteafatburner.info/story.php?id=2718

Because we can Trustworthy Computing through Trustworthy Practices | Paid Surveys

Fri, 29 May 2009 19:08:05 GMT

PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=because-we-can-trustworthy-computing-through-trustworthy-practices

re: Trustworthy Computing through Trustworthy Practices

teen lesbian rape — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:16:12 GMT

Persone los pioneros non rabata. Great...

re: Trustworthy Computing through Trustworthy Practices

forced sex — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 06:31:16 GMT

Wellcome to the real world.

re: Trustworthy Computing through Trustworthy Practices

Dinis Cruz — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:10:09 GMT

Hello Malcolm,

I just blogged a detailed comment to this post here http://owasp.net/blogs/dinis_cruz/archive/2005/12/08/276.aspx

Dinis Cruz
Owasp .Net Project
www.owasp.net

Trustworthy Computing?

Emil — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:08:01 GMT

"Trustworthy Computing" is not about users trusting their computers, it's about transnationals trusting their customers' computers.

I'm sorry, but if a giant corporation "trusted" my computer, I wouldn't.

re: Trustworthy Computing through Trustworthy Practices

Mike — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:04:47 GMT

Just with these few documented "issues", can anyone at Microsoft seriously say they think Microsoft will be considered serious when even mentioning trustworthiness?

Good luck. Try get MS say "We take full responsibility for our software" in the EULA's first.

re: Trustworthy Computing through Trustworthy Practices

denis — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:08:34 GMT

I found this to be interesting reading:

http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/csrss-backspace-bug.html

The existence of this (rather awful) problem was independently confirmed by others than the author of the article.

I find the semi-final paragraph particularly disturbing:

"On 2002-09-24, Microsoft KnowledgeBase article ID Q311486, promised six months ago, finally appeared. Its publication date is falsified to claim that it appeared on 2001-10-26. It talks about programs that "pass invalid screen size parameters" when the sample program code that it gives for replicating the bug clearly contains nothing at all relating to screen size parameters. And the explanation that it gives for the actual cause of the problem is woefully incorrect. Were it not that it has taken over eleven months for Microsoft to produce it, one might think that this article was a very badly done rush job."

re: Trustworthy Computing through Trustworthy Practices

Bobby Marinov — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 04:39:40 GMT

malx> Other teams may not use undocumented Windows functions, period.
I know for at least one case where Microsoft used undocumented function.
I have discovered this with SAK for Windows 2000 several years back.
What we found out was that the NFS server (implemented by Microsoft) used "FileIdBothDirectoryInformation" and "FileIdFullDirectoryInformation" information classes which are not described anywhere in Windows 2000 documentation (DDK & IFS header files included).
As expected I was not surprised when I found the information in the Windows XP IFS kit.
So if Other teams may not use undocumented Windows functions, period. How come this particular function was not failing on Windows 2000?
Granted Microsoft does not use undocumented functions, they simply forget to publish them on time so they can have the competitive advantage for at least half product cycle. In this case, if I didnt know about this function, my NFS implementation would have been forced to do open, read File ID and close for each entry found during directory enumeration.
How many small things like that Microsoft have conveniently forgotten to publish on time?
btw. What is the need to pay for the DDK? It used to be a free download for so long. Isnt that a step back?