Does Microsoft Need a New Source Code for the Future?

[S. Pidgorny]

G'day:

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:OiROnV08IHA.4468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> To get back to the original topic. I think that given the future of
> "cloud" computing or whatever you want to call it the network stack needs
> to be at a very low level in the OS and completely protected from all
> other processes including security software. A new code base is probably
> needed for this. I see a very minimal hypervisor based OS with hardware
> support, including networking, and not much else. Everything else would
> run in virtual machines. Each application would have it's own virtual
> machine and only talk to other applications and the OS through strictly
> enforced communications channels. The application would be free to supply
> it's own higher level OS, UI, or whatever you want to call it for it's own
> virtual machine. Applications could also have their own virtual file
> system completely inaccessible to other applications if they wanted.
> Hardware is advancing at a pace that this will be be possible in the near
> future if not already. We are currently using OS's that have security and
> other problems because they were designed to make the most of minimal
> hardware. Many compromises were made to get acceptable speed. We need an
> OS that is aware that things exist "out there somewhere" but it's core is
> isolated by hardware means. It's like having someone isolated in a missile
> silo with only a telephone line for communications. You also need a well
> guarded elevator to get a replacement operator and food in (updates) but
> this elevator is a physical mechanism that is well guarded and can be shut
> down in an emergency. All normal communications are done only through the
> phone line.

I would say - using single OS kernel and libraries, without virtualisation
layer and other interprocess barriers, is the most effective way to ustilise
computing resources.

We mustn't assume that the resources are unlimited. It is a popular
assumption lately though. Which is why we have new generation of software
that is capable of running like a snail even on more powerful systems, and
many problems with performance are being solved by throwing more hardware at
the issue.

Cloud computing presents an interesting change in security landscape.


--
Svyatoslav Pidgorny, MS MVP - Security, MCSE
-= F1 is the key =-

* http://sl.mvps.org * http://msmvps.com/blogs/sp *

 

[Dan]

Here is Chris Quirke's reply via email:

At 04:39 1/8/2008, you (I Dan -- added to minimize confusion)

wrote: >Here is the latest reply from Kerry Brown:>> >

What you (as a user or customer) wants to avoid, is an arms race.> > But an
arms race may suit your vendors just fine.>>>

I think we are already involved in this arms race. Yep. The cat's been left
out of the bag so long, with so much easygarbage around to eat, that it's
grown into a mighty lion. >Finding a way to stop it <cynic> Why stop what
drives sales and vendor dependency? </cynic> >I think that given the future
of "cloud" computing ... That is to be led by what you want, not what is
possible.

But sanity-check against what is likely to work safely then maybe not
>...the network stack needs to be at a very low level in the OS>and
completely protected from all other processes OK, but IMO it would be a
mistake to weld it *into* the OS. IOW, yes itshould be hidden inside the OS
as a "black box" with a small, generalizedand well-coded API that pulls data
into managed shapes (e.g. if a buffer isX bytes long, pull up to X bytes and
not until data-defined delimiter reached). But no, it should not be so
integrated into the OS that the difference betweenlocal and networked
operations are seamless and thus lost. It's tempting to make that mistake
("write once, re-use everywhere!") andsuch a design may be appropriate for
the managed-network crowd who driveMS's development. But it would be
repeating previous mistakes (RPC, LSASSwhy were these ever exposed to the
Internet?) for free stand-alone consumers. >A new code base is probably
needed for this. The opportunities are 64-bit PC code and IPv6. I'm not sure
if these havebeen seized firmly enough to deliver on this a full kernel
re-design wouldbe beyond the Vista and Windows 7 time frames, and we need
64-bit now. So I think we'll monkey around with the arms race for another 3-7
years,allowing exploitability to escalate into a crisis that we can then cure
withthe distasteful medicine of a new OS that breaks a lot of compatibility.
>I see a very minimal hypervisor based OS with hardware support,>including
networking, and not much else. Everything else would run>in virtual machines.
Each application would have it's own virtual machine>and only talk to other
applications and the OS through strictly enforced>communications channels. A
bit like the way 9x ran DOS apps, eh? Except those had no API totalk to each
other, given that DOS pre-dated 9x and 9x didn't pool theDOS environment
variables across the separated DOS sessions. >Applications could also have
their own virtual file system completely>inaccessible to other applications
if they wanted. Hardware is advancing>at a pace that this will be be possible
in the near future if not already. We>are currently using OS's that have
security and other problems because>they were designed to make the most of
minimal hardware. We are already consuming hardware gains in order to make
softwaremore reliable, if not safer - e.g. the move from tight assembler or C
codingto higher-level languages, 8-bit ASCII to 16-bit Unicode, yy to yyyy,
there-use of ever-larger code blocks as "black boxes" with the attendantbloat
of overall software size, code duplication via SxS, etc. We have to do that
to maintain an acceptable overall error rate. Let's sayyou'd tolerate 10 bugs
per application, and an application is now made ofa million lines of code,
rather than a thousand. Your error rate now has toimprove from 1% to 0.001%,
and the stress of double-checking my mathswill indicate how painful that is
likely to be

What's changed, is that errors are now likely to be exploited. We canfix
that by keeping errors away from exposed surfaces and better isolatingsystems
so they can be recovered more effectively. But as we're headingin the
opposite direction - glomming everything into one huge networkedmess - we
will more likely attempt to forge new artificial scopes betweenwhat we need
to isolate for safety. That hasn't worked too well, so far. It has spawned a
huge industry - whichdwarfs the dev and field-tech resources allocated to
consumeralnd - in theattempt to scope between user accounts. That massive
resource allocationhas not ended the game, but drags on as an escalating arms
race - which isgreat for the US (what else does that economy offer the rest
of the world thesedays, other than pulp entertainment?) but doesn't solve our
problem. Reminds me of the old communist rhetoric, i.e. it's always
"towards..." thisand "an approach to..." that, without ever any deliverables.
>We need an OS that is aware that things exist "out there somewhere">but it's
core is isolated by hardware means. Don't under-estimate the impact of this
it will soak up hardware resourceslike you would not believe.

For example, to be useful to consumers, youcould extend the current "user
accounts rights" model to treat every appas a separate user that would bring
to bear the richly-mature world ofmanaged permissions on the safety problems
we face ITW. But that blows out on scalability, i.e. wherever you bind "a
few" new thingsto a huge unbounded number of instances Expect to have 1M
permissionsfor a 10k data file, 3 out of 4 cores dedicated to navel-gazing
what shouldbe allowed to do what, only partly offset by look-up tables that
need RAM. This is still a house of cards that could fail spectacularly at any
time, shouldanything drill below these levels of abstraction (i.e. attain
"Matrix-vision", ifyou will).

That's because the lower levels of abstraction may be as easy towork with,
in their own terms, as the top level (after all, it was created by thesame
level of computing power, i.e. human enterprise). We've already learned how
meaningless "an attacker would have to..."mitigations are in the real world,
when difficult exploits become just anotherfreely-available re-usable "black
box" code object. As long as the defended and attacker are made of the same
stuff, you'll havean arms race, and as long as attackers have easier goals,
the attackers willbe held back only by available resources. The more revenue
the attackerscan generate, the more resources become available... malware may
alreadybe the bulk of the computing industry, in some places. Going back on
topic right now, MS is the primary provider of system codefor most of us,
and I'm sure MS would want to keep it that way - so the Qbecomes: Do we need
a new source code for the future? For medium-term values of "future", e.g.
beyond Windows 7, I'd say yes...and the challenge is how to design this so we
don't make mistakes weare still making right now.

We need to scope between contexts effectively, separating what needsto be
separated, while pooling seamlessly that which we see as unwantedbarriers to
functionality. The mistake to avoid is to forget about scopes wehaven't
needed until now, because natural barriers did the same thing. We need to
minimize code exposure, accepting that code will always beimperfect,
exploitable, and thus untrustworthy. Scopes do that, but wealso need
"pointed" surfaces that first expose logic that is trivial enoughto be free
of bugs (obverse of "any non-trivial code has bugs"), and thenfrom there,
progressively expands the surface, sanity-checking all the way. We need to
recognize both human users and code processes as activeplayers. Both have to
be managed in terms of what they are allowed todo, and both need accurate
safety info that is enforced by the OS.

For example, code should be aware that material to fill a buffer must
besmaller than X, should determine material is <= X before accepting it,and
the OS should crunch anything that shoves > X at that code. In the same way,
users need to see what an object would do if it wereto be "opened", and
material that tries to act in other ways should becrunched by the OS. Neither
code nor user should be spoofed intotaking greater risks than code design or
user intention. We need to recognize the rights of free users to be in full
control overtheir homes, which includes the virtual homes of their computers.
Wehave learned the hard way that "to compromise freedom for security isto
attain neither" bring that lesson to consumerland, and stop designingour OSs
to allow remote admin, hidden code, DRM, embedded payloadsthat leverage
vendor interests over our own, etc. to trump our control. Anything short of
that, is not "trustworthy computing".

----------------------------------------------------------------------- end
of reply---------

"Kerry Brown" wrote:

> >
> > What you (as a user or customer) wants to avoid, is an arms race.
> >
> > But an arms race may suit your vendors just fine.
>
>
> I think we are already involved in this arms race. Finding a way to stop it
> will be very hard at this point.
>
> To get back to the original topic. I think that given the future of "cloud"
> computing or whatever you want to call it the network stack needs to be at a
> very low level in the OS and completely protected from all other processes
> including security software. A new code base is probably needed for this. I
> see a very minimal hypervisor based OS with hardware support, including
> networking, and not much else. Everything else would run in virtual
> machines. Each application would have it's own virtual machine and only talk
> to other applications and the OS through strictly enforced communications
> channels. The application would be free to supply it's own higher level OS,
> UI, or whatever you want to call it for it's own virtual machine.
> Applications could also have their own virtual file system completely
> inaccessible to other applications if they wanted. Hardware is advancing at
> a pace that this will be be possible in the near future if not already. We
> are currently using OS's that have security and other problems because they
> were designed to make the most of minimal hardware. Many compromises were
> made to get acceptable speed. We need an OS that is aware that things exist
> "out there somewhere" but it's core is isolated by hardware means. It's like
> having someone isolated in a missile silo with only a telephone line for
> communications. You also need a well guarded elevator to get a replacement
> operator and food in (updates) but this elevator is a physical mechanism
> that is well guarded and can be shut down in an emergency. All normal
> communications are done only through the phone line.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
> http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
> http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Kerry Brown]

"S. Pidgorny <MVP>" <slavickp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:O8AlUzD9IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>> A side note: I will not send my bank logon after being redirected. You
>>> know why.
>>>
>>
>> You and I would not be easily fooled by this. I think would be quite easy
>> to fool most people if you owned their DNS.
>
> So here's my problem: SSL certificates, and commercial CAs, are considered
> means of identifying Web sites. If DNS will somehow be made more trusted,
> we won't need commercial CAs. And if commercial CAs will be a part of the
> new trusted DNS then DNS will lose its versatility.
>
> Fraud in general is older than Internet. I think most people will pick up
> awareness and should not be considered clueless forever.
>

You may be right. I may have been a little pessimistic in saying "most
people" Your comment about fraud in general made me rethink this. For a
fraud artist to be successful they don't have to fool a very large
percentage of the population as long as the population is large enough.
Owning DNS would allow allow the fraudsters to fool enough people with
phishing attacks that it would be very profitable. It's obvious that spam is
profitable. Their success rate has to be much less than 0.01%. Owning DNS
should be able to bump this up considerably. If they even started to
approach 1% it would be a very large problem.

I don't have the technical knowledge to know what may be needed to fix DNS.
I do have enough knowledge to see that the current DNS system is flawed and
may not be sustainable long term. The current patches are a bandage when a
transplant may be needed. Hopefully a few bandage changes will see us
through until a transplant is available.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

 

[Kerry Brown]

"S. Pidgorny <MVP>" <slavickp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e1gh55D9IHA.3648@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> G'day:
>
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:OiROnV08IHA.4468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>> To get back to the original topic. I think that given the future of
>> "cloud" computing or whatever you want to call it the network stack needs
>> to be at a very low level in the OS and completely protected from all
>> other processes including security software. A new code base is probably
>> needed for this. I see a very minimal hypervisor based OS with hardware
>> support, including networking, and not much else. Everything else would
>> run in virtual machines. Each application would have it's own virtual
>> machine and only talk to other applications and the OS through strictly
>> enforced communications channels. The application would be free to supply
>> it's own higher level OS, UI, or whatever you want to call it for it's
>> own virtual machine. Applications could also have their own virtual file
>> system completely inaccessible to other applications if they wanted.
>> Hardware is advancing at a pace that this will be be possible in the near
>> future if not already. We are currently using OS's that have security and
>> other problems because they were designed to make the most of minimal
>> hardware. Many compromises were made to get acceptable speed. We need an
>> OS that is aware that things exist "out there somewhere" but it's core is
>> isolated by hardware means. It's like having someone isolated in a
>> missile silo with only a telephone line for communications. You also need
>> a well guarded elevator to get a replacement operator and food in
>> (updates) but this elevator is a physical mechanism that is well guarded
>> and can be shut down in an emergency. All normal communications are done
>> only through the phone line.
>
> I would say - using single OS kernel and libraries, without virtualisation
> layer and other interprocess barriers, is the most effective way to
> ustilise computing resources.
>
> We mustn't assume that the resources are unlimited. It is a popular
> assumption lately though. Which is why we have new generation of software
> that is capable of running like a snail even on more powerful systems, and
> many problems with performance are being solved by throwing more hardware
> at the issue.
>

My programming days are long past. Compared to when I was current (back in
the Z80 to 80486 timeframe) hardware resources are pretty much unlimited now
but the programming paradigm for the OS core doesn't seem to have changed
that much. Applications yes, OS not so much. I think a new paradigm is
needed. Hardware virtualization and cloud computing may be the catalyst
needed for this change. A completely new hypervisor based OS could be very
lean and thus very quick. The onus on features, UI, backwards compatibility,
etc., would be on the applications running in virtual machines. Applications
would stand or fail on their own merits. Rather than an application being
forced to present itself in a certain way to the user because that's what
the OS dictates it would be free to use the best UI for what it needs to do.
The OS would be invisible and irrelevant to most users. Application
development would obviously be harder but in the long run applications would
be easier to use because they aren't constrained by the OS. They would be
completely portable and thus able to take advantage of new hardware advances
immediately. They would not need to be running on the local hardware. The
application could be anywhere that the OS could communicate with. All the
application developer need supply to the local computer is an interface
between where the application exists and the OS.

I don't see any of this evolving from any current OS. It's what I would like
to see happen. I believe eventually we will get to something like this. The
two main current commercial OS developers (Apple and Microsoft) have too
much invested to be able to change to this paradigm. Their whole focus would
have to switch to application development rather than OS development. There
wouldn't be a lot of money in the OS. They would not have control of what
runs and how it runs. Perhaps an Open Source (this doesn't mean Linux) OS
would work for this. Perhaps I've just got my head way up in the clouds
Perhaps what is old is new. This sounds a little bit like a very simple
version of VMS.

> Cloud computing presents an interesting change in security landscape.

Indeed.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

 

[Kerry Brown]

While I'm enjoying the conversation it's getting too disjointed with this
coversation by proxy thing. I agree with some of Chris's points and disagree
with others. I believe a new paradigm or way of thinking about what an OS
is, is needed. I don't think any existing OS' can evolve into what is
needed. It will require something new. I'll leave it at that.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

 

[Dan]

I just wanted to say Kerry Brown, you are truly awesome. I am old-school as
well with programming done in BASIC way back in 1984 on an IBM PCjr that I
still have. It actually belonged to my dad, Ivan but he has now given it to
me. My mom, Toni bought it for a "special" price back in the day for only
$900 which is a ton of money for back then but this computer was built to
last and it still works! The amazing thing is that it had cordless keyboard
technology that was provided with only 2 AA batteries and completely done on
the hardware side courtesy of IBM (International Business Machine) and
proudly made in Armonk, New York. Ah, this brings back the memories. Thank
you so much Kerry Brown for this interesting discussion.

"Kerry Brown" wrote:

> "S. Pidgorny <MVP>" <slavickp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e1gh55D9IHA.3648@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > G'day:
> >
> > "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> > news:OiROnV08IHA.4468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >
> >> To get back to the original topic. I think that given the future of
> >> "cloud" computing or whatever you want to call it the network stack needs
> >> to be at a very low level in the OS and completely protected from all
> >> other processes including security software. A new code base is probably
> >> needed for this. I see a very minimal hypervisor based OS with hardware
> >> support, including networking, and not much else. Everything else would
> >> run in virtual machines. Each application would have it's own virtual
> >> machine and only talk to other applications and the OS through strictly
> >> enforced communications channels. The application would be free to supply
> >> it's own higher level OS, UI, or whatever you want to call it for it's
> >> own virtual machine. Applications could also have their own virtual file
> >> system completely inaccessible to other applications if they wanted.
> >> Hardware is advancing at a pace that this will be be possible in the near
> >> future if not already. We are currently using OS's that have security and
> >> other problems because they were designed to make the most of minimal
> >> hardware. Many compromises were made to get acceptable speed. We need an
> >> OS that is aware that things exist "out there somewhere" but it's core is
> >> isolated by hardware means. It's like having someone isolated in a
> >> missile silo with only a telephone line for communications. You also need
> >> a well guarded elevator to get a replacement operator and food in
> >> (updates) but this elevator is a physical mechanism that is well guarded
> >> and can be shut down in an emergency. All normal communications are done
> >> only through the phone line.
> >
> > I would say - using single OS kernel and libraries, without virtualisation
> > layer and other interprocess barriers, is the most effective way to
> > ustilise computing resources.
> >
> > We mustn't assume that the resources are unlimited. It is a popular
> > assumption lately though. Which is why we have new generation of software
> > that is capable of running like a snail even on more powerful systems, and
> > many problems with performance are being solved by throwing more hardware
> > at the issue.
> >
>
> My programming days are long past. Compared to when I was current (back in
> the Z80 to 80486 timeframe) hardware resources are pretty much unlimited now
> but the programming paradigm for the OS core doesn't seem to have changed
> that much. Applications yes, OS not so much. I think a new paradigm is
> needed. Hardware virtualization and cloud computing may be the catalyst
> needed for this change. A completely new hypervisor based OS could be very
> lean and thus very quick. The onus on features, UI, backwards compatibility,
> etc., would be on the applications running in virtual machines. Applications
> would stand or fail on their own merits. Rather than an application being
> forced to present itself in a certain way to the user because that's what
> the OS dictates it would be free to use the best UI for what it needs to do.
> The OS would be invisible and irrelevant to most users. Application
> development would obviously be harder but in the long run applications would
> be easier to use because they aren't constrained by the OS. They would be
> completely portable and thus able to take advantage of new hardware advances
> immediately. They would not need to be running on the local hardware. The
> application could be anywhere that the OS could communicate with. All the
> application developer need supply to the local computer is an interface
> between where the application exists and the OS.
>
> I don't see any of this evolving from any current OS. It's what I would like
> to see happen. I believe eventually we will get to something like this. The
> two main current commercial OS developers (Apple and Microsoft) have too
> much invested to be able to change to this paradigm. Their whole focus would
> have to switch to application development rather than OS development. There
> wouldn't be a lot of money in the OS. They would not have control of what
> runs and how it runs. Perhaps an Open Source (this doesn't mean Linux) OS
> would work for this. Perhaps I've just got my head way up in the clouds
> Perhaps what is old is new. This sounds a little bit like a very simple
> version of VMS.
>
> > Cloud computing presents an interesting change in security landscape.
>
> Indeed.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
> http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
> http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Kerry Brown]

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B0EE2FA9-ABC2-4E13-AEC0-5457DDD74B19@microsoft.com...
>I just wanted to say Kerry Brown, you are truly awesome. I am old-school
>as


Thanks, but I think some of the others in the conversation are more
"awesome" than me, at least in their low level understanding of current OS'.
I'm a bit of a dreamer at times.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

 

[Dan]

Me too. I can fully relate and enjoying living in Dreamworld aka The Matrix
or Just Plain old Dan World. BTW, people at school used to call me Danbo
because I would pretend that I was in the military. I also have the nickname
Danimal because of my aggressive nature sometimes and like to call myself
Danster for some unknown even to me reason. You can see by this that I am
quite interesting to say the least. <smiles>

"Kerry Brown" wrote:

> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B0EE2FA9-ABC2-4E13-AEC0-5457DDD74B19@microsoft.com...
> >I just wanted to say Kerry Brown, you are truly awesome. I am old-school
> >as
>
>
> Thanks, but I think some of the others in the conversation are more
> "awesome" than me, at least in their low level understanding of current OS'.
> I'm a bit of a dreamer at times.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
> http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
> http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Dan]

Agreed. I think it is almost time to start a new topic on this but not right
away of course and in the future and in my neck of the woods, it is Saturday
afternoon. What about where you are at, Kerry and I hope you can forgive me
being nosy but it that has always been a part of the nature of Dan.
<chuckles>

"Kerry Brown" wrote:

>
> While I'm enjoying the conversation it's getting too disjointed with this
> coversation by proxy thing. I agree with some of Chris's points and disagree
> with others. I believe a new paradigm or way of thinking about what an OS
> is, is needed. I don't think any existing OS' can evolve into what is
> needed. It will require something new. I'll leave it at that.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
> http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
> http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Kerry Brown]

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:23BE9673-EB0C-43FD-BA30-B0CF6ADB8750@microsoft.com...
> Agreed. I think it is almost time to start a new topic on this but not
> right
> away of course and in the future and in my neck of the woods, it is
> Saturday
> afternoon. What about where you are at, Kerry and I hope you can forgive
> me
> being nosy but it that has always been a part of the nature of Dan.
> <chuckles>


http://www.vistahelp.ca/about/about.htm

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

 

[~BD~]

Hi guys ...........

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:uUO9ANN9IHA.3368@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:23BE9673-EB0C-43FD-BA30-B0CF6ADB8750@microsoft.com...
>> Agreed. I think it is almost time to start a new topic on this but not
>> right
>> away of course and in the future and in my neck of the woods, it is
>> Saturday
>> afternoon. What about where you are at, Kerry and I hope you can forgive
>> me
>> being nosy but it that has always been a part of the nature of Dan.
>> <chuckles>
>
>
> http://www.vistahelp.ca/about/about.htm
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
> http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
> http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/
>
>

I'm begining to believe that you might be an OK guy, Kerry Brown
............. but it's been a hard road to get here! You first popped into my
cyber-world just after I was 'invited' to venture into Annex Cafe - if I
recall correctly it was to provide support for your real-life partner,
K.Dee.

Indeed, you (listed as TechB) and she are still listed here:-
http://www.annexcafe.com/registry/index.cfm?list=T

I do not wish to pry into your personal relationship, but I wonder if you
can tell me why K.Dee is no longer posting on User2User (at least, unseen
by me and my friends who are still allowed to post there).

Maybe Dan would enjoy Annex Cafe too - have you been to visit Dan? Great on
a Saturday! Btw, I live in the UK and own a narrowboat!

Dave

--

 

[Dan]

Sweet as the Kiwis in New Zealand say. Anyway, my brother-in-law James is
from BC, Canada originally and is now married to my sister Kate in New York
State. I think Canadians are so much cooler than boring old and loud and
obnoxious Americans like me. You have a much better appreciation for life,
nature and the great outdoors that we as boring Americans take for granted.
I have only been to Montreal in Canada, I am sad to say. <sighs>

"Kerry Brown" wrote:

> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:23BE9673-EB0C-43FD-BA30-B0CF6ADB8750@microsoft.com...
> > Agreed. I think it is almost time to start a new topic on this but not
> > right
> > away of course and in the future and in my neck of the woods, it is
> > Saturday
> > afternoon. What about where you are at, Kerry and I hope you can forgive
> > me
> > being nosy but it that has always been a part of the nature of Dan.
> > <chuckles>
>
>
> http://www.vistahelp.ca/about/about.htm
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
> http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
> http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Dan]

Narrowboat -- no clue what that is but I guess I can hear from you about it
or Google it if I am so inclined. I have been to London --- really cool ---
Oxford -- depressed me because of the weather --- what part of the UK do you
live or is that asking you too much -- if so feel free not to reply

"~BD~" wrote:

> Hi guys ...........
>
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:uUO9ANN9IHA.3368@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:23BE9673-EB0C-43FD-BA30-B0CF6ADB8750@microsoft.com...
> >> Agreed. I think it is almost time to start a new topic on this but not
> >> right
> >> away of course and in the future and in my neck of the woods, it is
> >> Saturday
> >> afternoon. What about where you are at, Kerry and I hope you can forgive
> >> me
> >> being nosy but it that has always been a part of the nature of Dan.
> >> <chuckles>
> >
> >
> > http://www.vistahelp.ca/about/about.htm
> >
> > --
> > Kerry Brown
> > MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
> > http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
> > http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
>
> I'm begining to believe that you might be an OK guy, Kerry Brown
> ............. but it's been a hard road to get here! You first popped into my
> cyber-world just after I was 'invited' to venture into Annex Cafe - if I
> recall correctly it was to provide support for your real-life partner,
> K.Dee.
>
> Indeed, you (listed as TechB) and she are still listed here:-
> http://www.annexcafe.com/registry/index.cfm?list=T
>
> I do not wish to pry into your personal relationship, but I wonder if you
> can tell me why K.Dee is no longer posting on User2User (at least, unseen
> by me and my friends who are still allowed to post there).
>
> Maybe Dan would enjoy Annex Cafe too - have you been to visit Dan? Great on
> a Saturday! Btw, I live in the UK and own a narrowboat!
>
> Dave
>
> --
>
>
>

 

[~BD~]

Hi Dan

You might enjoy exploring here
http://www.waterscape.com/things-to-do/boating

I live (when not on my boat!) in Devon in the South West of England. I have
a son who lives near Oxford - small world really! He's just returned from 4
years in Albuquerque, New Mexico where he was teaching USAF helicopter
pilots 'how to do it properly'! <smile>

Dave

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:702BE2F4-7900-4AE5-B612-B55B4672DAB8@microsoft.com...
> Narrowboat -- no clue what that is but I guess I can hear from you about
> it
> or Google it if I am so inclined. I have been to London --- really
> cool ---
> Oxford -- depressed me because of the weather --- what part of the UK do
> you
> live or is that asking you too much -- if so feel free not to reply
<snip>

 

[Dan]

BD, you can fully trust Kerry Brown. He is good. It just takes getting used
to the mvps. Gary S. Terhune has me plonked ever since the right side of my
thyroid was out of whack and I needed surgery to remove the right side of the
thyroid which literally had holes from the radiation which I received 16+
years ago.

I still have the left side of the thyroid which I take medicine to control
the thyroid levels but it still has never been as good as having your body
regulate the thyroid itself. I am still very grateful for modern science and
the State's Medical System which I would have been a goner but for the
helpfulness of modern capitalistic medicine which still drives me up the wall
sometimes with the difficulty in having certain standard operating procedure
tests run on me and the place to get it and 2 or more systems working
seperately and then having to work as one because of your ppo plan.

It is not always fun but at least it costs much less by playing by the book
and your medical plan's ways so instead of being an expensive test you only
pay a small co-pay. I do like the idea of socialized medicine but I am
concerned about what it would due to the global and especially the usa
pharmaceutical industry without which I would be doa already. Thanks for the
response.

 

[Root Kit]

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 20:04:00 -0700, Dan <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:

>Narrowboat -- no clue what that is but I guess I can hear from you about it
>or Google it if I am so inclined. I have been to London --- really cool ---
>Oxford -- depressed me because of the weather --- what part of the UK do you
>live or is that asking you too much -- if so feel free not to reply

Could you guys PLEEEEEEASE keep your off topic private chit chat for
yourselves????

This NG is about SECURITY !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Root Kit]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 08:11:15 +0100, "~BD~" <~BD~@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Hi Dan
>
>You might enjoy exploring here
>http://www.waterscape.com/things-to-do/boating
>
>I live (when not on my boat!) in Devon in the South West of England. I have
>a son who lives near Oxford - small world really! He's just returned from 4
>years in Albuquerque, New Mexico where he was teaching USAF helicopter
>pilots 'how to do it properly'! <smile>

And how does that relate to IT security?

 

[Dan]

<it is working>

Thank you, BD. Please ignore the troll b_nice aka rootkit. Robear is
completely correct in not feeding the trolls and now I fully understand his
wisdom. He is a great MVP and I place him high up there with Chris Quirke,
MVP and Kerry Brown, MVP as really nice people. BTW, it is Sunday and a day
of rest so no security or safety issues for me today. <LOL>

 

[Root Kit]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 06:52:02 -0700, Dan <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:

>Thank you, BD. Please ignore the troll b_nice aka rootkit.

Geeze. Not only are you posting off topic private drivel, you're also
an ignorant fool. Like if it wasn't enough that when you post
something on topic it's mostly clueless - but at least on topic.

 

[~BD~]

Sorry to hear about your medical problems, Dan. Good that you are still able
to 'compute'! ))

Do you know, I'd really *like* to trust Kerry Brown .............. but each
time I ask him to comment on matters discovered in the past he ???? refuses
to come back and answer in a simple and straight-forward manner.

As he knows all too well, though ........... 'The truth will out!'

Dave

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:70043619-0826-412A-AB25-67DC7999D7E4@microsoft.com...
> BD, you can fully trust Kerry Brown. He is good. It just takes getting
> used
> to the mvps.

<snip>