Comments on: Good Discussion on Protected Processes http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=36 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: Nynaeve » Blog Archive » Process-level security is not a particularly great way to enforce DRM when users own their own hardware. http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=36#comment-3122 Nynaeve » Blog Archive » Process-level security is not a particularly great way to enforce DRM when users own their own hardware. Tue, 08 May 2007 05:03:10 +0000 http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=36#comment-3122 [...] full control over their computer) that is intent on bypassing the protected process mechanism could simply load a driver designed to subvert the protected process [...] [...] full control over their computer) that is intent on bypassing the protected process mechanism could simply load a driver designed to subvert the protected process [...]

]]> By: Blog do Anderson Thiago (aka Anderson T) http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=36#comment-1950 Blog do Anderson Thiago (aka Anderson T) Sat, 14 Apr 2007 15:18:50 +0000 http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=36#comment-1950 <strong>DRM pode esconder malwares</strong> Alex Ionescus recentemente disponibilizou em seu blog uma prova de conteito que atende pela alcunha de DRM pode esconder malwares

Alex Ionescus recentemente disponibilizou em seu blog uma prova de conteito que atende pela alcunha de

]]> By: CQ http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=36#comment-1901 CQ Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:01:51 +0000 http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=36#comment-1901 If you things clear right away it wouldn't have been a big deal; however, you made it turned it into FUD... by simply saying "Vista has protected processes that nobody can access, but here I created a tool that can"... And without specifically talking about Vista 64-bit vs. 32-bit you implied that your tool works everywhere, which is, again, misleading. And do you really think that the AV folks and crackers don't already know about the technique you used? If you things clear right away it wouldn’t have been a big deal; however, you made it turned it into FUD… by simply saying “Vista has protected processes that nobody can access, but here I created a tool that can”… And without specifically talking about Vista 64-bit vs. 32-bit you implied that your tool works everywhere, which is, again, misleading.

And do you really think that the AV folks and crackers don’t already know about the technique you used?

]]> 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', '1284012212', '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