Search found 343 matches: code audit
Searched query: code audit
ignored: code
- Tue Nov 03, 2020 12:00 am
- Forum: German
- Topic: Überwachung ?
- Replies: 17
- Views: 1458
Re: Überwachung ?
... werden und der einzige, der davon Kenntnis hat, ist der Entwickler oder Code Beitrager, der sie absichtlich eingebaut hat, sowie natürlich die Organisation ... Bug gewesen sein. Der einzige Schutz, abgesehen von teuren Code Audits, gegen so etwas, wobei das kein hundertprozentiger Schutz ist, ist ...
- Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:21 pm
- Forum: German
- Topic: Überwachung ?
- Replies: 17
- Views: 1458
Re: Überwachung ?
Du meinst ein Sicherheitsaudit?
Ja gibts:
https://www.heise.de/security/meldung/O ... 87514.html
https://www.patrickweber.info/veracrypt ... schlossen/
und so weiter...
Ja gibts:
https://www.heise.de/security/meldung/O ... 87514.html
https://www.patrickweber.info/veracrypt ... schlossen/
und so weiter...
- Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:17 pm
- Forum: General Discussion and Feedback
- Topic: Third party criticism to ReactOS project
- Replies: 22
- Views: 1651
Re: Third party criticism to ReactOS project
And now we're doing what everyone agreed _wasn't_ a good idea: discussing the criticism beyond the technical...
I've never heard of this "paid audit" thing, so I'd personally assume that the guy made it up.
I've never heard of this "paid audit" thing, so I'd personally assume that the guy made it up.
- Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:22 am
- Forum: General Discussion and Feedback
- Topic: Third party criticism to ReactOS project
- Replies: 22
- Views: 1651
Re: Third party criticism to ReactOS project
I didn't know there was a paid audit several years back. I only knew about the first one. So that begs some questions. Did the audit originate with ROS? If not, then who did it? And what/where are the findings? I will search the web and ...
- Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:37 am
- Forum: General Discussion and Feedback
- Topic: Third party criticism to ReactOS project
- Replies: 22
- Views: 1651
- Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:27 am
- Forum: General Discussion and Feedback
- Topic: Third party criticism to ReactOS project
- Replies: 22
- Views: 1651
Re: Third party criticism to ReactOS project
Can someone elaborate about this?There was a paid audit of all your code made in 2015. Results were really terrifying.
- Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:13 am
- Forum: German
- Topic: Filseclab Personal Firewall 2.5 Source Code
- Replies: 19
- Views: 13420
Re: Filseclab Personal Firewall 2.5 Source Code
... nicht passfähiges kann nicht als Referenz gelten. Sonst hätte man den lizenzrechtlich bedenklichen Leak damals auch als Referenz nehmen können. Audit und CleanRoom zeugen davon, dass es nicht geht. Wenn schon eine WindowsFirewall, dann doch eine die Intern schon existent ist. Wobei man sich ...
- Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:03 am
- Forum: General Discussion and Feedback
- Topic: ReactOS audit
- Replies: 8
- Views: 6960
Re: ReactOS audit
The first link sais that microsoft contracted a third-party developer to make the tool, and merely didnt catch the gpl violation; I dunno the legal terms involved, but i would lay blame at the 3rd party developer for that case.
I didnt understand the second link too much about what happened.
I didnt understand the second link too much about what happened.
- Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:32 pm
- Forum: General Discussion and Feedback
- Topic: ReactOS audit
- Replies: 8
- Views: 6960
Re: ReactOS audit
Well, how often does Microsoft audit its code to make sure nobody of their devs smuggles in programs in breach of the GPL? The reality is: having ...
- Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:02 pm
- Forum: General Discussion and Feedback
- Topic: ReactOS audit
- Replies: 8
- Views: 6960
Re: ReactOS audit
Well, how often does Microsoft audit its code to make sure nobody of their devs smuggles in programs in breach of the GPL?
The reality is: having an established rule-set is all that can be required. NOBODY does "permanent audits". And nobody has to.
The reality is: having an established rule-set is all that can be required. NOBODY does "permanent audits". And nobody has to.
- Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:41 pm
- Forum: General Discussion and Feedback
- Topic: ReactOS audit
- Replies: 8
- Views: 6960
Re: ReactOS audit
... just heard the 2000 leak was thousands of include files and assembly files. And no, there is not a complete rejection here. You are not allowed to code the areas you've seen. So if you saw inside of HAL, then you'd have to avoid kernel coding, but would still be free to write unrelated drivers ...
- Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:48 pm
- Forum: General Discussion and Feedback
- Topic: ReactOS audit
- Replies: 8
- Views: 6960
Re: ReactOS audit
Yes, but wasn't the leaked stuff in assembly? Anyone that knows the answer to this, cannot be a developer as they have seen leaked Windows code, and it sounds like you've seen it. Also, I would have to say no it's not mainly in assembly, that would be insane and impossible to code/maintain. ...
- Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:01 pm
- Forum: General Discussion and Feedback
- Topic: ReactOS audit
- Replies: 8
- Views: 6960
Re: ReactOS audit
Yes, but wasn't the leaked stuff in assembly?
- Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:58 pm
- Forum: General Discussion and Feedback
- Topic: ReactOS audit
- Replies: 8
- Views: 6960
Re: ReactOS audit
All fine, but one thing is wrong. Windows is made in Visual C and thus in a C language, not Assembler.
- Tue Dec 27, 2016 10:53 pm
- Forum: General Discussion and Feedback
- Topic: ReactOS audit
- Replies: 8
- Views: 6960
Re: ReactOS audit
... someone sees the need. Plus there are safeguards. The devs have to sign contracts and everything, and they must disclose everything. ReactOS is coded in C while older Windows is mostly in Assembly, and there is quite a bit of work to trying to convert Assembly to C. As for safe and functional, ...