Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(December 1996)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: NT bug versus fork bomb
From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb @ FRB . GOV>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 09:51:33 -0500
To: nkeenan @ gsionline . com (Nick Keenan)
Cc: Firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:53:12 EST." <19531299855461 @ gsionline . com>

>As an NT programmer, I feel I have to interject here.
>
>The ability for applications to have any priority level is not a bug or a
>design flaw.  It's a feature.  The distinction is that a bug or a flaw is
>behavior different from that desired by the designer.  That is not the case
>with NT -- it behave exactly the way it's supposed to.

[snip]

>What these three methods have in common is that they all require physical
>access to the computer -- in general NT doesn't allow programs to be started
>remotely.

	can you run a browser with Active-X on an NT machine?
	can the scheduling priority feature be exercised by and Active-X
	"application"?

	just curious.

jmb

-- 
Jonathan M. Bresler             202-452-2831                 breslerj @
 frb .
 gov
MS-169          Federal Reserve Board of Governors        Washington DC 20551
Speaking for myself.  Others speak for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors




References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: your mail
From: Sri <nsriram @ bani . com>
Next: RE: Untrusted vs. trusted network security
From: "Craig I. Hagan" <hagan @ cih . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: NT bug versus fork bomb
From: nkeenan @ gsionline . com (Nick Keenan)
Next: RE: NT bug versus fork bomb
From: Russ <Russ . Cooper @ RC . on . ca>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com