Hi everbody!!!

Windows Vista is really becoming a very attractive operating system.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/vista/process_Vista.mspx

The best part of the document:


Vista will be so cool

Regards,
Opcode

BAHAHAHAAAAaaaaaaaa

signed code, shit!

i honestly appreciate these movements, it makes all more spicy!

somehow i find it really interesting how ms attemts to implement tighter security. they have some good ideas and I watch the model they build up.
we will see if the theory will survive in practice hehe.

cheers,

0x3c004>>2

PS:
Note
Certain process properties (such as the working set) can be indirectly changed through membership in a job object.

Also, don't forget that if software isn't enough to crack, there's always hardware

I doubt the RAM is encrypted

without going to explain the things, the interesting is that new Vista will have a totally new dynamical rings structure, as also in the two slides I extracted from existing presentations for you..

im wondering if they are really using all 4 rings now, instead of only 0 and 3

but i guess, they did the priv. separation through a more restrictive api

Yes, it would definitely be cool when the really implement all the 4 rings
As far as I know there isn't any other x86 OS which does so, but please correct me if I'm wrong ....

the reason for having only 0 and 3 was coming from the support of alpha processors, which have only 2 rings. Unill all the supported platforms will have the same rings MS will be able to support also the missing rings, but up to now it's only a caracteristic of intel processors.

i just wish all exe packers would work fine :P

http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/B/3/AB39CA51-CA4E-4B43-8714-28498E200D0E/VistaSecurityForDevelopers.ppt

Here is a powerpoint document about security under Vista for developers.
(thanks Neitsa)

ps: replace 'tt' in 'hxxp', use OpenOffice if you don't have the Office suite.

EDIT KAYAKER:
Don't bother using 'hxxp' when posting in these forums, 'http' is OK.

About "Service profiling":
"...enables service to restrict IT'S behavior"
What kind of censorship is that ?! OS will temper 'certified' code? What for?...

If all this 'os-protecting' will ever see the light, how os will find out that one app needs access to printer, and other low-level hdd. Maybe there will be certificates that allow access to devices/memory pages...;P

F001 ! \m/

OMG, ORC called my name!!

I did not look into that further, but I guess there could be policies applied or ... blah. I think the theory is to make the systems more secure / robust with more granularity on control. I just fear the implementation, as M$ code ..... well .... I guess we all saw some of it allready , also the implementation I am afraid is sometimes a bit not matching reality and appears like just somebody did something (hyped as the ultra feature) and in reality it turns out as totally annoying, not helping and just truning all good ideas into shit. sorry my language
(Like "super user" confirmations preventing you from work ahem)

regards, 0xf001

Signed code and "Do not attempt to circumvent this restriction", my ass.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1983037,00.asp

look for joannas blog she says she is going to present some pills for SINGED DRIVERS (no no misspelling she spelt it like that )

hehe

edit oops the link in deltas post above points to same story

and silver posted this in offtopic

well i still get the bronze trophy

Actually, you get "dipped in bronze", which is a totally different category of "reward", altogether.

Regards,

100% does not exist in computer, imho

There seems to be a lot of people who think putting a lock on a safe with the key right next to it will protect the contents any more than leaving the safe unlocked. All you're really doing is adding a tedious step to the process of cracking it.