Slashdot Mirror
Is the x86 Architecture Less Secure?
An anonymous reader asks: "Paul Murphy at CIO Today reports that a specific Windows buffer overflow vulnerability ' depends on the rigid stack-order execution and limited page protection inherent in the x86 architecture. If Windows ran on Risc, that vulnerability would still exist, but it would be a non-issue because the exploit opportunity would be more theoretical than practical.' And implies that other Windows vulnerabilities are actually facilitated by having an x86 chip." How does the x86 processor compare with other architectures when it comes to processor based vulnerabilities? How well have newer additions, like the Execute Disable Bit, helped in practical situations?
They're bad for cutting corners in the first place and getting to the top by creating a platform where "badly written" programs were the norm.
They're not stupid. They knew full well what the security requirements would be in a fully connected world. However, they also knew that their average customer had no clue what the issues were going to be, and they took advantage of that lock them in with file formats, user training and app compatibility barriers before most of their customers knew what was ultimately in store.
If they had taken the time to properly secure their products *before* they introduced them to the server and Internet marketplace, they wouldn't have this dilemma today. That was a calculated risk they took in their forced march to eliminate any competition. Now they hava a multi-year slip in their next OS schedule largely because they had to backport security into their previous release. It serves them right.