actually.... the old standby is that undefined behavior is just that:
Undefined behavior -- behavior, upon use of a nonportable or erroneous program construct,
... for which the standard imposes no requirements. Permissible undefined behavior ranges from ignoring the situation completely with unpredictable results, to having demons fly out of your nose.
Many People seem to have the same misconception you've perpetuated here, that a reactor can be SCRAM'd just by dropping the rods into it. The fact of the matter is that a reactor has a MASSIVE latent heat of reaction (this doesn't tend to happen as much in military reactors because they are near weapons grade and thus have less radioactive by-products that need to decay). This heat MUST be dissipated or the core will melt. One way to get around this issue is to use a natural circulation reactor. Or to maintain an extra supply of coolent on a gravity feed.
Sometimes I wish we could mod up beyond 5
The fact of the matter as the parent post makes is that insecure password storage is a far larger issue, many many sites just store the passwords plaintext in a DB. If you're lucky they are bothering to use SHA1 on them first (without a salt). The website owner feeling smart adds salts but is still using SHA1 and a single round of hashing (cracking complexity... trivial). A real smart one decides he's going to use multi-round hashing, and perhaps even a stronger hash or better algorithm designed to be slower HMACSHA512 etc. If you're really really lucky they'll be a professional and use a third party module for authentication that implements PBKDF2/PKCS#5 using a really slow hash.
But lets be honest folks... security is always priority number 2, just like it's Safety Second in a dangerous workplace
Actually no it's not... Linux has that already and it works just fine, anyone who has gone through the pain of getting flash player to work before the x64 port can tell you. This is actually more similar (albeit with more restrictions) to setting the
The benefit on windows is that you:
1 - POSIX. If you want to develop for POSIX, Linux supports this out of the box.
As a developer that is precisely the problem, the only consistent API in Linux is POSIX, and compared to say... WIN32 Core (minwin) that's fine. But as MinWin is essentially just Linux with Busy-box running on it, you have POSIX and nothing else. But as a developer to justify developing for Linux I need a set of rich distribution independent API's that are universal across the entirety of GNU/Linux, and not specific to a particular build of a particular distribution. Without that I'm left chasing distro install numbers to justify what I'm going to develop for or I have to trust that some downstream developer isn't going to screw up my code (See the Debian OpenSSL incident).
So what am I saying? I'm saying that very choice and customization that makes Linux the OS that so many love and cherish is what is preventing desktop development outside the tightly coupled applications that come with the various shells. Fundamentally I don't think that is an issue that can be addressed. Perhaps each shell could agree to make a subsystem to allow their apps to run on the other... (much like QuickTime allows Itunes on Windows) but that would require a lot of development for little payoff so I don't see it happening.
It's not treason since the Indian government is not an enemy of the United States. Furthermore to be charged with treason there has to be two eye witnesses, "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
More likely someone will get charged under the Espionage Act, which has no such requirements... assuming of course that the US Government was not complicit in this.
I honestly think this is a special case, the Indian Government was essentially threatening to ban them from that market. To the fan bois out there that are touting FOSS as the solution... you might want to go read some of the security blogs before you go and do that. You'll quickly realize that it doesn't matter if the OS manufacturers make backdoors or not. ALL OSs have major security holes, Windows has a codebase stretching back nearly 30 years, as does Linux, I can guarantee that both have bugs that can lead to privilege escalation, some of which can be executed with remarkable reliability, e.g. Stuxnet.
My primary concern here is that this violates the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, as giving the Indian Government the backdoor constitutes a bribe.
The world was a different place in the early days of NT 4
Arguably true... but only for the monolithic win 9x series releases, which aren't relevant to this topic since the NT kernel was developed independently within Microsoft by Dave Cutler from DEC. It was Microsoft's first truly modern operating system. As many comm enters above me have mentioned NT originally did have functions such as font rendering in userspace due to its heavy hardware abstraction. As the pending issues with 9x loomed however MS could read the writing, on the wall; porting 9x to Unicode (it was ANSI throughout, a separate "Layer for Unicode" had to be used to run Unicode programs on 9x machines) as well as supporting newer hardware (AHCI, USB, true Plug and Play) was going to be nearly impossible (the attempt was called Windows ME). So Microsoft began with NT4 to prep for the mass migration from 9x. Since the average consumer at the time didn't want to drop $3k for a workstation that would be able to run the NT model correctly, Microsoft made some compromises to the OS for the sake of speed.
No, it wasn't. NT4 was released in 1996. By that time, many people here on
NT4 already had a security architecture. There was a different place available (basically anywhere outside ring0) and it should have been put there, and it definitely should have been obvious to anyone with three grams of brains that stuff like this doesn't belong into ring0.
You however are making the assumption that everybody in Microsoft talks to each other. A most incorrect assumption. The reality is most likely that WinDiv (The division responsible for the OS) made the assumption that fonts would not be loaded from insecure sources, e.g. Word documents. The Office division however faced the problem of what do you do when some user uses a font that is not on another users system? So they made the decision to allow the embedding of fonts into the file format, along with a bunch of other really bad decisions in hindsight (remember the Melissa virus?) that would have been caught if they had had the same security reviews as WinDiv did. To compound the problem, Office used unpublished and most likely unhardened APIs (it probably still does in parts) that allowed it the capabilities to do things like on the fly font loading something that wasn't exposed to the rest of us until Windows 2000 (NT 5.0). My point being that at the time it WAS a safe decision as far as WinDiv was concerned. Should they have been a little more careful with those unpublished APIs... yes they should have, it would have prevented a lot of anti-trust issues, but they weren't. So here we are with yet another security bug.
Firefox is using:
Image (executables): 95,084K
Mapped File: 56,892K
Sharable Pages: 133,100k
Private Data (explicit mallocs): 205,280K
Page Table: 1,372K
Unusable (leftover area of explicitly allocated pages that were LESS than 64K): 9,440K
Only 10M unusable isn't bad on windows... (start inevitable trolling here) as the memory manager only allocates pages in increments on 64k
I wish we had a score six to mod this too. As a
If a thing's worth having, it's worth cheating for. -- W.C. Fields