Comments on: Why Protected Processes Are A Bad Idea http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34 Windows Internals, Thoughts on Security, and Reverse Engineering Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:53:54 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Психо трюки http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-46826 Психо трюки Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:41:01 +0000 http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-46826 <strong>Свобода от пыток...</strong> Свобода от пыток и бесчеловечного обраще... Свобода от пыток…

Свобода от пыток и бесчеловечного обраще…

]]> By: Строительное производство http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-46825 Строительное производство Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:44:31 +0000 http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-46825 <strong>12.2. Штукатурные п...</strong> 12.2. Штукатурные п облицовочные работы Общи... 12.2. Штукатурные п…

12.2. Штукатурные п облицовочные работы
Общи…

]]> By: Vista’s Protected Processes Not So Protected ~ usrbingeek’s musings http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-36781 Vista’s Protected Processes Not So Protected ~ usrbingeek’s musings Thu, 22 May 2008 03:07:56 +0000 http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-36781 [...] [Why Protected Processes Are A Bad Idea] [...] [...] [Why Protected Processes Are A Bad Idea] [...]

]]> By: Reenigne blog » Blog Archive » Computer industry: complexity explosion http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-35281 Reenigne blog » Blog Archive » Computer industry: complexity explosion Fri, 09 May 2008 21:19:38 +0000 http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-35281 [...] to break, DRM must be extremely invasive so tends to cause complexity throughout entire systems. Windows Vista is probably the best example of DRM run horribly [...] [...] to break, DRM must be extremely invasive so tends to cause complexity throughout entire systems. Windows Vista is probably the best example of DRM run horribly [...]

]]> By: Protected Processes in Vista - Useful against warden? - BWHacks http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-24018 Protected Processes in Vista - Useful against warden? - BWHacks Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:18:32 +0000 http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-24018 [...] took my sebatical from the online programming/gamehacking scene, Alex Ionescu published an article (link) about how protected processes, though limited in functionality, are effectively immune to all [...] [...] took my sebatical from the online programming/gamehacking scene, Alex Ionescu published an article (link) about how protected processes, though limited in functionality, are effectively immune to all [...]

]]> By: Daily Cup of Tech Tumblog » Protected Processes Problems http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-1937 Daily Cup of Tech Tumblog » Protected Processes Problems Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:29:04 +0000 http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-1937 [...] Alex Ionescu’s Blog » Why Protected Processes Are A Bad Idea: But basically, they’re another part of the next-generation high-definition audio/video support present into Vista, and related to the Protected Media Path, which I had covered a bit earlier, much to people’s attention. Before continuing, let me make clear that this post isn’t related to any previous PMP stuff I have posted, is not about the so-called crack or idea I had (Which, if you haven’t read previously, turned out to be false). This entry is strictly related to Protected Processes and their non-PMP use.     [...] [...] Alex Ionescu’s Blog » Why Protected Processes Are A Bad Idea: But basically, they’re another part of the next-generation high-definition audio/video support present into Vista, and related to the Protected Media Path, which I had covered a bit earlier, much to people’s attention. Before continuing, let me make clear that this post isn’t related to any previous PMP stuff I have posted, is not about the so-called crack or idea I had (Which, if you haven’t read previously, turned out to be false). This entry is strictly related to Protected Processes and their non-PMP use.     [...]

]]> By: [Slashdot] Stories for 2007-04-08 at Kaizenlog http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-1923 [Slashdot] Stories for 2007-04-08 at Kaizenlog Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:10:05 +0000 http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-1923 [...] 0. http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34 1. [...] [...] 0. http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34 1. [...]

]]> By: Global Toad News » Vista can have super secret code that runs on your machine http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-1905 Global Toad News » Vista can have super secret code that runs on your machine Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:24:42 +0000 http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-1905 [...] to Alex Ionescu, Vista has “Protected Processes” which are supposedly super secure processes. [...]

]]> By: albertferran.name » Cau un dels pilars de la seguretat de Windows Vista http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-1877 albertferran.name » Cau un dels pilars de la seguretat de Windows Vista Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:14:14 +0000 http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-1877 [...] aquí tot correcte. Però Alex Ionescu ha estat investigant aquesta característica de Windows Vista i ha arribat a la conclusió que el [...] [...] aquí tot correcte. Però Alex Ionescu ha estat investigant aquesta característica de Windows Vista i ha arribat a la conclusió que el [...]

]]> By: Ben http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-1862 Ben Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:35:27 +0000 http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34#comment-1862 Nice job with this implementation. I've got a few questions, though. Assuming that the hard requirement for signed drivers in x64 can be circumvented, e.g. by offline patching of the kernel binary (at least I understand from comments by various MS staff that this is not unfeasible), is the same approach applicable in principle to x64 also? Moreover, where a TPM is installed in the machine, are Protected Processes also under hardware protection? Can this be addressed without first removing TPM functionality? Nice job with this implementation. I’ve got a few questions, though.

Assuming that the hard requirement for signed drivers in x64 can be circumvented, e.g. by offline patching of the kernel binary (at least I understand from comments by various MS staff that this is not unfeasible), is the same approach applicable in principle to x64 also?

Moreover, where a TPM is installed in the machine, are Protected Processes also under hardware protection? Can this be addressed without first removing TPM functionality?

]]> WordPress database error You have an error in your SQL syntax. Check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE `option_name` = VALUES(`option_name`), for query INSERT INTO `wp_options` (`option_name`, `option_value`, `autoload`) VALUES ('_site_transient_timeout_theme_roots', '1284044088', 'yes') ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE `option_name` = VALUES(`option_name`), `option_value` = VALUES(`option_value`), `autoload` = VALUES(`autoload`) made by require, require_once, require_once, require_once, get_template_directory, get_theme_root, get_theme_roots, get_themes, set_site_transient, add_site_option, add_option WordPress database error You have an error in your SQL syntax. Check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE `option_name` = VALUES(`option_name`), for query INSERT INTO `wp_options` (`option_name`, `option_value`, `autoload`) VALUES ('_site_transient_theme_roots', 'a:2:{s:7:\"classic\";s:7:\"/themes\";s:7:\"default\";s:7:\"/themes\";}', 'yes') ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE `option_name` = VALUES(`option_name`), `option_value` = VALUES(`option_value`), `autoload` = VALUES(`autoload`) made by require, require_once, require_once, require_once, get_template_directory, get_theme_root, get_theme_roots, get_themes, set_site_transient, add_site_option, add_option