two bogus messages to this list
teddygee at visi.net
Mon Nov 11 20:09:35 PST 1996
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Rabid Wombat wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 attila at primenet.com wrote:
>> In <199611111238.GAA17346 at manifold.algebra.com>, on 11/11/96
>> at 06:38 AM, ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) said:
>> .I did not write the two messages below. I did have a small party
>> .yesterday, probably some of my guests did that...
>> just goes to proof it: Microslop and Intel boxes are secure
>> only when most of their parts are stored under lock and key.
>Um, not to disagree with you re Intel/Micro$loth, but most UNIX systems
>can be brought up in single-user mode and the root password changed by
>anyone with physical access to the system. You could end up with even
>more trouble than if someone messed with your M$ box.
Microsloth has, at the heart of it's system, a call which traps ALL
KEYSTROKES and EVENTS. This call exists from Win32s on, and can be
placed inside of a DLL which most users would have no idea was loaded.
Even under NT, this DLL can be made to remain resident and trapping
Keystrokes, events, and window contents.
Does this just BEG to be exploited?
If you give me normal user access to ANY microsloth machine, I can
have most of the system's security broken down to NOTHING within a
week. And I'm not even a good MS programmer! <Are my prejudices
At least under UNIX, you damned well know you have to secure your
system. Microsloth attempts to sell itself as a secure platform.
"Obviously, the US Constitution isn't perfect, but
it's a lot better than what we have now." - Unknown
PGP key id - 0xDEACDFD1 - Full key available from
pgp-public-keys at pgp.mit.edu
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 463 bytes
Desc: "PGP signature"
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy