Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Why so aggressive? (Score 1) 170

A good analogy is that you responded to my proof that horses exist with a request for delivery of a very special pony.

No, that's a really dumb analogy. As I've already told you twice, I never asked for an old bug, as I knew they existed. I asked for a current bug. That this basic point eludes you this far into the thread means you are hopeless dumb or willfully ignorant.

As is Microsoft Windows, OS X and nearly everything else.

And they all suck when it comes to security exploits, because they are monolithic. Try reading the paper you linked and actually understand it.

Anyways, you're a waste of time. You've already embarrassed yourself enough with your hypocrisy and foolishness. No more replies from me.

Comment Re:Why so aggressive? (Score 1) 170

I can't help noticing that instead of addressing the examples I gave you decided to attack me instead.

I already responded to your examples. I can't help it if you're daft or willingly ignorant.

Says a lot doesn't it?

Says that you act angry, make a fool and hypocrite out of yourself, and then act like I instigated your nonsense.

Using a VM adds a new class of vunerability instead of security.

It also adds a new layer of security. If somebody exploits a zero-day in an app, they then have to exploit a zero-day in the VM it's running in. It also prevents a huge swath of attacks from malware that abuse typical permissions found in garden variety desktop setups.

If you want something for security use something designed for it instead of a totally different tool. You are suggesting something akin to hammering in a nail with a drinking glass - WRONG TOOL FOR THE JOB.

Uh huh. That's why you can't demonstrate an exploit that is working today. Every security solution has had security bugs, even your "right" tools. I'm willing to bet none of the ones you mentioned (like jails, for example) live up to the ideals given in the PDF you linked. Linux and BSD are both plagued with monolithic kernels.

In the meantime, I'll keep on using VMs for security, and you can keep on gnashing your teeth.

Comment Re:Why so aggressive? (Score 1) 170

You are bitching about all kinds of shit unrelated to the topic. What does that tell you?

That you're projecting again, because that's what you are doing. I'm just responding to your bitching, showing what a hypocrite and fool you are.

Idiocy, but not really yours

Yeah, it's yours. I'll use working and practical security even if it has design flaws. When pressed, you cannot demonstrate a working exploit today.

Comment Re:Why so aggressive? (Score 1) 170

Can you do anything other than whine and get things wrong?

That projection is still going strong. You say this after embarrassing yourself, accusing me of what you actually did, showing yourself the fool and the hypocrite.

All it took for me to find those examples you pretended could not possibly exist was a google search

Yes, I figured it was just a Google search, since you clearly demonstrated you didn't know of an open hole that exists today, despite claiming that a VM is not security. I know there have been VM security bugs in the past. I didn't need you to search that for me.

My point is that they have been fixed because VMs are being used for security. What I said: "virtual machines are used for security and violations that break that security are bugs" (bold added). All you did was confirm what I wrote.

I'm perfectly fine to acknowledge that the security of VMs could be designed better and are not bulletproof. I even thanked you for the PDF link (showing how angry I was, right?).

Comment Re:Why so aggressive? (Score 1) 170

So says the guy who marked someone a "foe" to the person who did not do the same to to person calling him a liar.

Projection sure is a bitch, isn't it? Turns you into a complete hypocrite and fool. Your handle was familiar, but I only remembered our previous entanglement later on. You marked me a foe (check your list) a long time ago, not the other way around. You called me a liar, not the other way around.

You're the angry one. All because I challenged your position.

Comment Re:Why so aggressive? (Score 1) 170

Now where did I say that? What's with the lies over something so trivial?

I'm not lying. I'm drawing an inference from your statements:

"A VM is not security - idiots"
"effectively zero if it exploits a bug in the VM"

If security was as bad as you make it out to be, then why can't you demonstrate a hole?

Read the paper to see how it should be and despair that the Virtual Machines we are talking about are nothing like how it should be.

Thanks for the link, and I will read the paper. But imperfectly designed security that actually achieves some security in practice is better than not using a VM at all. I'll keep on using VMs as another layer of security.

Comment Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning" (Score 1) 401

Yes, there are rare exceptions, especially if they transitioned at a young age, though they will never be able to bear children. Bradley Manning isn't one of them. Neither is a guy with a square jaw, giant Adam's apple, and broad shoulders, despite wearing lipstick and long hair, yet we're told we must participate in their delusions.

Slashdot Top Deals

C for yourself.