RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| reply to chemaupr
Re: Another hole in Windows?
said by chemaupr  :Bla, Bla..... First, saying that is "PART" of Vista does not means that is coded into Vista. Altough, I have to admit I have not read the full article. Have not read it either, do not had a WSJ account, but the rehash on the DSL blurb did state "significant part". That brings back memories of the Kill Netscape Program and the resulting lawsuit and rhetoric and the result thereof.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| reply to RayW
Bla, Bla.....
First, saying that is "PART" of Vista does not means that is coded into Vista. Altough, I have to admit I have not read the full article.
There are many VoIP programs today that run in windows... Take Cisco IPCC. In addition, they do not have to run in the OS itself, they can work aspart of the Messenger or other web interface. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Applications do not belong in the OS. Having VoIP as a "significant" part of Vista will probably open up as many holes as forcing IE to be integral to Windows did. Of course, the fact that IE was forced in with no planning as a stop gap for the 'kill the competition' lawsuit and this VoIP should be better planned and thought out, MIGHT make a difference in how exploitable the VoIP links are.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
