If you boot from a Live CD, since you have physical access to the machine, isn't it essentially the same thing? I'm confused about how this is a vulnerability.
... "rundll32.exe". So many malicious programs already use this instead of their own, more easily-detectable executables, that I no longer trust ANY instance of this when I see it in the process list. I'm an ignorant fool that didn't read the article, but just the summary is enough to make me irritated. I can't believe they'd whitelist THAT.:S
Perhaps it's time to do away with phrases like "browser will replace the desktop" and "browser-based OS", because they seem to bring about angry friction in old-school developers.
I tend to think that "desktop" operating systems and their BIOS's will eventually merge to provide a base hardware interface whereas the browser becomes a base for most software. And I say most, but realistically everything is on or going to the web and to say otherwise is a denial. It's been nearly 15 years since I started using the internet and all I've seen is a inexorable shift from OS-specific to browser-based. Sure there's obstacles related to privacy, technology, and people but it's only delays (the singularity is near?).
All that said, I prefer Chrome as my primary perusal platform. It generally stays out of my way and handles things as I expect. Whether or not Google has its eye on a permanent place amongst similar products, its speedy minimalist approach is a sexy suggestion to its peers.
I still enjoy writing JScript ASP under IIS, but unfortunately it's very platform-specific and many COM objects that make it useful won't be found on other server-side JavaScript implementations.
Slashdot Mirror
... of their movement?
If you boot from a Live CD, since you have physical access to the machine, isn't it essentially the same thing? I'm confused about how this is a vulnerability.
Nope
... "rundll32.exe". So many malicious programs already use this instead of their own, more easily-detectable executables, that I no longer trust ANY instance of this when I see it in the process list. I'm an ignorant fool that didn't read the article, but just the summary is enough to make me irritated. I can't believe they'd whitelist THAT. :S
Perhaps it's time to do away with phrases like "browser will replace the desktop" and "browser-based OS", because they seem to bring about angry friction in old-school developers. I tend to think that "desktop" operating systems and their BIOS's will eventually merge to provide a base hardware interface whereas the browser becomes a base for most software. And I say most, but realistically everything is on or going to the web and to say otherwise is a denial. It's been nearly 15 years since I started using the internet and all I've seen is a inexorable shift from OS-specific to browser-based. Sure there's obstacles related to privacy, technology, and people but it's only delays (the singularity is near?). All that said, I prefer Chrome as my primary perusal platform. It generally stays out of my way and handles things as I expect. Whether or not Google has its eye on a permanent place amongst similar products, its speedy minimalist approach is a sexy suggestion to its peers.
The Guild of Calamitous Intent? Ah! Now it makes sense!
Snoo snoo! :D :( :D :( :D :(
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4476/futurama-death-by-snoo-snoo
Yes, thank you for noting this :)
I still enjoy writing JScript ASP under IIS, but unfortunately it's very platform-specific and many COM objects that make it useful won't be found on other server-side JavaScript implementations.