Leggendo l'articolo e il titolone corrispondente che impressione vi fareste?

titolone

(fonte)

E se ci foste arrivati via Slashdot che recitava:

By connecting a Linux machine to a Firewire port on the target machine, the tool can then modify Windows' password protection code and render it ineffective. Boileau said he did not release the tool publicly in 2006 because 'Microsoft was a little cagey about exactly whether Firewire memory access was a real security issue or not and we didn't want to cause any real trouble'. But now that a couple of years have passed and the issue has not resolved, Boileau decided to release the tool on his website."

quale delle seguenti possibilità credereste che sia vera?

  1. Windows è l'unico OS vulnerabile all'attacco via firewire e a MS non gliene frega niente
  2. Tutti gli OS sono vulnerabili allo stesso tipo di attacco in maniera uguale
  3. Windows è "meno vulnerabile" degli altri OS in quanto bisogna faticare di più

Roba da non crederci ma se si segue la fonte si scopre che la risposta giusta è la 3:

Being curious, I implemented my own stack of tools to try it out against my Linux laptop (before I knew that Max's OSX python-firewire bindings had been ported to Linux!). It worked just like Max said, and of course, because physical-memory-DMA-busmastering is the Fire in Firewire.

However, despite working fine against Linux, Macs and BSD boxes, it didn't work against Windows. My colleague Tmasky set to it, and soon enough had found the miracle ingredient.

Enrico si chiede ma perché la gente ce l'ha con Windows? Perché hackerare un server (Web!!) Linux non fa notizia alla stessa maniera? Perché c'è gente, di intelligenza di superiore alla media, che continua a coltivare perle?

A questo punto credo sia una questione di entropia. Fare caos, disseminare cattiva informazione, costa meno fatica e - Gutmann docet - rende molto di più che "riordinare" le informazioni in modo corretto.

Concludo con un altro quiz, visto che sono in vena: a che anno risalgono le seguenti dichiarazioni (le ho taroccate un po' per rendere più divertente la questione)?

Hopeless optimism must be a fundamental part of human nature, because we want to believe that new operating systems truly represent an improvement on their predecessors. It’s easy to point to certain features in a new OS as examples of progress, but end-users often find that a new OS performs like molasses compared to the version they were using. As a result, CTOs wanting to capitalize on the benefits of a new OS may find that new hardware investments are necessary — and expensive — requirements.

Unfortunately, Microsoft’s Windows Vista appears to be maintaining that tradition …

Windows XP significantly outperformed Windows Vista. In the most extreme scenario, our Windows Vista system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as did the Windows XP client. Our testing also suggests that companies determined to deploy Windows XP should consider ordering desktop systems with dual CPUs to get the most out of the new OS.

[...]

IT departments should take advantage of license downgrade provisions and continue to press forward with Windows XP deployments until the installed hardware base catches up with Vista

[...]

Windows Vista increasingly ate the dust of Windows XP as load ramped up, regardless of machine specs or Office version

[...]

Until multicore desktop PCs become commonplace, we have a hard time recommending widespread adoption of Windows Vista at all

[...]

Shops lured by Vista features should weigh their options carefully. In many cases, these features may not be compelling enough to justify saddling your end-users with a slower OS

La risposta in un commento o nel prossimo post. Sorprenderà quasi tutti.

Technorati Tags: ,

-quack