Dieser Artikel, "What really happened with Vista", hat ein paar Absätze über die Schlangenölindustrie, die ich hier mal zitieren will:...

BM-NBN5C4Fxxpiz2NWx1jjXovo7myq1pp1F
Jan 14 08:18 [raw]

<li><a href="?ts=a4a73b22">[l]</a> <a href="https://blog.usejournal.com/what-really-happened-with-vista-an-insiders-retrospective-f713ee77c239">Dieser Artikel, "What really happened with Vista"</a>, hat ein paar Absätze über die Schlangenölindustrie, die ich hier mal zitieren will:<blockquote lang="en">In many cases, these security changes meant deep architectural changes were required to third party solutions. And most ecosystem vendors were not incented to invest heavily in their legacy apps. Some of these solutions took the unorthodox approach of modifying data structures and even instructions in the kernel in order to implement their functionality, bypassing APIs and multiprocessor locks that often caused havoc. Antivirus vendors were notorious for using this approach.<p>In my role as the head of Microsoft security, I personally spent many years explaining to antivirus vendors why we would no longer allow them to “patch” kernel instructions and data structures in memory, why this was a security risk, and why they needed to use approved APIs going forward, that we would no longer support their legacy apps with deep hooks in the Windows kernel — the same ones that hackers were using to attack consumer systems. Our “friends”, the antivirus vendors, turned around and sued us, claiming we were blocking their livelihood and abusing our monopoly power! With friends like that, who needs enemies? They just wanted their old solutions to keep working even if that meant reducing the security of our mutual customer — the very thing they were supposed to be improving.</blockquote>Nur damit ihr das auch mal von jemand anderem als immer nur mir gehört habt.

[chan] fefe
BM-2cVf4AJ5E11LXpaHU19oQwAMPtynNjYRa5