Is the x86 Architecture Less Secure? 315
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?
thats because (Score:3, Funny)
Happy Paul Murphy Day (Score:5, Funny)
Well... (Score:4, Funny)
Still here? Dammit...
big deal.. (Score:2, Funny)
1993 called - they want their flamewar back (Score:5, Funny)
Not the fault of the OS at all! (Score:5, Funny)
After all, how could Microsoft be expected to learn the intricacies of their primary platform and write code that does what it's supposed to?
We have been lied to.
Re:Is this the Astrodome? (Score:3, Funny)
Right this instant, I'm working on my "Windows better for pirating media files" opinion piece. It's a surefire winner.
Re:PR as Journalism (not) (Score:1, Funny)
Yellow wheaties. (Score:1, Funny)
That was me. Sorry.
Re:Bad analogy (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but only cdr analogies get +1, Funny.
Virus Execution Coprocessor (Score:2, Funny)
Given that you just can't stop the things, why not offload the burden of running them from the processor?
BIPs (Bots Infected per Second) could be the metric for performance.