Re: Intercepting hooks and API Calls
- From: Ray Trent <ratrent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:43:47 -0700
cristalink wrote:
I would agree that the *kernel* security architecture is excellent. On
Could you elaborate? What do you mean by security? Is there any security in the kernel at all? Any driver gets access to everything. I don't want say a WiFi network driver or anything like that to have access to any of my files.
If you look at the architecture of the kernel WRT to things external to the kernel, its security mechanisms are quite sound. Drivers are part of the kernel for this purpose, of course. Note: this is a comment on the architecture, not on the implementation, which probably still has flaws.
There's hope on the horizon with Longhorn, though...
Really? What will be different? Remember all that fuss about XP a few years
I meant merely that there is hope that ordinary users will be able to get useful work done without being administrators in Longhorn. Note: I'm not holding my breath... but there seems to be some hope.
--
.../ray\..
.
- References:
- Intercepting hooks and API Calls
- From: Cleber P. de Souza
- Re: Intercepting hooks and API Calls
- From: cristalink
- Re: Intercepting hooks and API Calls
- From: Maxim S. Shatskih
- Re: Intercepting hooks and API Calls
- From: Ray Trent
- Re: Intercepting hooks and API Calls
- From: cristalink
- Intercepting hooks and API Calls
- Prev by Date: Re: NDIS Macros For Locating L3/L4 data
- Next by Date: Re: From COM port to USB... help and need some advice!
- Previous by thread: Re: Intercepting hooks and API Calls
- Next by thread: Re: Intercepting hooks and API Calls
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
