Xenix 286?

Chuck Guzis cclist at sydex.com
Sun Feb 26 18:31:20 CST 2006

On 2/26/2006 at 7:10 PM spc at conman.org wrote:

>  I don't buy this argument---what about the 68000 family?  No segments
>there at all.  The Internet Worm of 1988 took advantage of that (and the
>VAX---another flat architecture).  

Still, it's possible to protect (read only or execute only) code pages.  I
think that Windoze got into the mess by taking a lax attitude such as
dynamically modifying code (e.g. DLL calling sequences) as a routine part
of operation.  Once you start down that road, it's hard to change.

A lot of our current security problems arise from insecure thinking.  I
could hardly believe it when MS trotted out OLE as an internet facility
(renaming it ActiveX in the process).

One could, for example, treat executable files as sacrosanct and difficult
to modify or access as data without permission.  But they're still treated
as if they contained nothing special.


More information about the cctech mailing list