... 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 ...

Du meinst ein Sicherheitsaudit?

Ja gibts:
https://www.heise.de/security/meldung/O ... 87514.html
https://www.patrickweber.info/veracrypt ... schlossen/
und so weiter...

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 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 ...

jimtabor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:27 am

There was a paid audit of all your code made in 2015. Results were really terrifying.

Can someone elaborate about this?

I was afraid to ask, but..... yeah ^^

There was a paid audit of all your code made in 2015. Results were really terrifying.

Can someone elaborate about this?

... 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 ...

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.

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 ...

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.

... 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 ...

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. ...

Yes, but wasn't the leaked stuff in assembly?

All fine, but one thing is wrong. Windows is made in Visual C and thus in a C language, not Assembler.

... 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, ...