[BACK]Return to press.html CVS log [TXT][DIR] Up to [local] / www

Diff for /www/Attic/press.html between version 1.557 and 1.558

version 1.557, 2007/02/19 18:57:21 version 1.558, 2007/03/04 03:03:57
Line 16 
Line 16 
 <h2><font color="#e00000">Media Coverage</font></h2>  <h2><font color="#e00000">Media Coverage</font></h2>
 <hr>  <hr>
   
   
 <h2>February, 2007</h2>  <h2>February, 2007</h2>
 <ul>  <ul>
   
 <li><font color="#009000"><strong>  <li><font color="#009000"><strong>
   <a href="http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/security/is_symantecs_vista_security_assessment_credible.html">
   Is Symantec's Vista Security Assessment Credible?</a>, Microsoft Watch, February 28, 2007
   </strong></font><br>
   This paper is nominally about the relationship between Symantec and Microsoft,
   talking about a white paper released by the former.
   But it's quite revealing about Microsoft itself.
   "Even Microsoft... now acknowledges that UAC (User Account Control) -
   Vista's most [high-]profile security feature - is vulnerable to subversion,
   particularly through social-engineering tactics."
   And while the Symantec report says some good things about Vista security,
   "its criticisms are brutal - for their clarity and foreboding:
   <blockquote>
   "Many of the technologies that Microsoft has employed to bolster
   the security of Windows Vista are not new. In fact, most are
   derived from the groundwork originally laid by open-source
   operating systems such as Linux and OpenBSD, the PaX and
   Stackguard projects, as well as numerous academic publications....
   The majority of these technologies first appeared in Windows
   XP SP2 [Service Pack 2]. Windows XP SP2, at the time of its
   release, was also billed as the most secure version of Windows."
   </blockquote>
   So remember, folks, if it's about security, you may well have heard it
   here first, long before Microsoft "invented" it.
   <p>
   
   
   <li><font color="#009000"><strong>
 [GERMAN] <a href="http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/85495">  [GERMAN] <a href="http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/85495">
 OpenBSD und Linux: Kritik an Stillhalteabkommen für Treiberentwicklung</a>, heise online, February 2, 2007  OpenBSD und Linux: Kritik an Stillhalteabkommen für Treiberentwicklung</a>, heise online, February 2, 2007
 </strong></font><br>  </strong></font><br>
Line 49 
Line 77 
   
 </ul>  </ul>
   
   <h2>January, 2007</h2>
   <ul>
   <li><font color="#009000"><strong>
   <a href="http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2007/01/18/greylisting-with-pf.html">
   Greylisting with PF</a>, O'Reilly onLAMP, January 18, 2007
   </strong></font><br>
   This onLAMP article by Dan Langille leads you through the process of
   setting up greylisting using OpenBSSD's pf and spamd, which has now been ported
   to most other BSD systems. The article is
   quite detailed, but readers should ignore the FreeBSD-specific stuff
   like kldload (OpenBSD uses modload, but, OpenBSD always has pf built-in
   so you don't need this). Parts of the article are based on Bob Beck's
   <a href="http://www.nycbsdcon.org/speakers#Beck">spamd talk at NYCBSDCon</a>.
   <p>
   
   </ul>
   
 <h2>December, 2006</h2>  <h2>December, 2006</h2>
 <ul>  <ul>
   
Legend:
Removed from v.1.557  
changed lines
  Added in v.1.558