Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, D.Draker said:

you still don't know that?

For example DAVE, our respected moderator, uses XP on his daily basis, I use Vista.

So do i, daily, which says nothing about  "XP is insecure and not recommended." being factually incorrect. Apologies if feelings were hurt.

Edited by 66cats
Link to comment
Share on other sites


6 minutes ago, D.Draker said:

For example DAVE, our respected moderator, uses XP on his daily basis, I use Vista.

And you want a medal for it? You think that makes you special?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi to all.:)

In my opinion guys,you are giving too much importance to flags.
Those who seek security should also look elsewhere.
For example, has anyone using XP enabled DEP (Data Execution Prevention) for Thorium?

 

Edited by Sampei.Nihira
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, chermany4ever said:

To rebel against trends, against what seems to be imposed. :realmad:

Maybe I'm the only one doing regular things (web, videos, music, occasional (re)programming, games).

Seeing IT from different perspectives has taught me worrying about software bells and whistles too much is unhealthy and in the end you die anyway.

Edited by UCyborg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Sampei.Nihira said:

For example, has anyone using XP enabled DEP (Data Execution Prevention) for Thorium?

Isn't this enabled by default unless you go out of the way to turn it off? Every program these days is compiled with NX Compat flag. This particular feature of the CPUs is ANCIENT at this point. The only people that turn it off have issues in their head (IMHO).

Edited by UCyborg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

Isn't this enabled by default unless you go out of the way to turn it off? Every program these days is compiled with NX Compat flag. This particular feature of the CPUs is ANCIENT at this point. The only people that turn it off have issues in their head (IMHO).

Certainly It can be.:yes:
Has anyone checked whether DEP is enabled -permanent with Process Explorer?

P.S.

Enabling DEP for all programs (EXE) and not just system processes if I remember correctly is an easy thing to do.

Edited by Sampei.Nihira
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, UCyborg said:

And you want a medal for it? You think that makes you special?

Of course not! But the amount of times we read it, oh boy... Besides, telling it simply makes no sense since it's already publicly known we're on old "insecure" OS.

P.S. I want, and always preferred, strictly about the subject posts. 

Edited by D.Draker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@D.Draker
Sure, but it gets kinda old since MS in the forum name (Microsoft) is much larger term.

38 minutes ago, Sampei.Nihira said:

Certainly It can be.:yes:
Has anyone checked whether DEP is enabled -permanent with Process Explorer?

P.S.

Enabling DEP for all programs (EXE) and not just system processes if I remember correctly is an easy thing to do.

OK, this might actually be more important on XP x64, I bet Chromium calls infamous SetProcessDEPPolicy on XP x86, which doesn't exist on x64 XP (different branch). But if it does not call it appropriately on XP x86, does the OS get out of the way and enable it with the right flag in the .exe?

What you see below isn't the default state on XP x64:

spacer.png

I made a jump to the data section where I put a NOP instruction and tried to execute it. Prerequisite:

spacer.png

Otherwise, no access violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

24 minutes ago, D.Draker said:

telling it simply makes no sense since it's already publicly known

Wasn't trying to inform, simply to put "--disable-encryption ... is unsecure" in due perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

@D.Draker
Sure, but it gets kinda old since MS in the forum name (Microsoft) is much larger term.

OK, this might actually be more important on XP x64, I bet Chromium calls infamous SetProcessDEPPolicy on XP x86, which doesn't exist on x64 XP (different branch). But if it does not call it appropriately on XP x86, does the OS get out of the way and enable it with the right flag in the .exe?

What you see below isn't the default state on XP x64:

spacer.png

I made a jump to the data section where I put a NOP instruction and tried to execute it. Prerequisite:

spacer.png

Otherwise, no access violation.

:yes:

If you want to check whether DEP protection is up and running for browsers, you can also use the old HPA test tool:

http://dl.surfright.nl/hmpalert-test.exe

obviously only DEP would be (from my point of view) just enough for the security of browsers:

https://sendvid.com/wp52v128

in the video above my old anti-exploit protections in Windows XP applied to browsers.

But I am digressing,have a good evening.:hello:

Edited by Sampei.Nihira
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 66cats said:

Wasn't trying to inform, simply to put "--disable-encryption ... is unsecure" in due perspective.

Yes, well, @AstroSkipper likes UXP browsers very much and they don't encrypt their databases. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, VistaLover said:

A more in-depth analysis of the term:

Thanks for the accuracy. Made me remember my first experience with a portable... was a game! Don't remember exactly which one but in those days they already came in 3 or more CDs and the process of installing could be tedious not to mention the thousands of files that were copied and other modifications to the system, you'll know better than me. So, the fact of downloading a single zip file with a folder that when unzipped you could just run the .exe and play... it was like magic! I think they were called "Direct Play". That's when it all started for me and from that moment on I always look for portables. Give me portables. :thumbup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 66cats said:

So do i, daily, which says nothing about  "XP is insecure and not recommended." being factually incorrect. Apologies if feelings were hurt.

No place here for feelings. nimportequoi.gif Everything is insecure. The whole world is insecure. 
unrequin.gif courant.gif grenade.gif
And in these days, more recent Windows versions like Windows 10 are much more likely to be targeted by hackers than the small fraction of 1% who still use Windows XP. It's simply not worth it. argent1.gif However, knowingly increasing general vulnerability and insecurity is something one can do, but one doesn't have to. smilie_denk_24.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

Yes, well, @AstroSkipper likes UXP browsers very much and they don't encrypt their databases. :P

Yep! I like UXP browsers. But if another browser offers such a security feature, why should I disable it? :dubbio: That would make no sense. nimportequoi.gif I only disable features which have a noticeable, negative impact of the system or browser performance. And of course those which cause problems or are not supported by the system anyway. spanachee.gif

Edited by AstroSkipper
Update of content
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...