Microsoft fails to patch yet another vulnerability for 90 da

Kill yourself, you dumb fucking shit stain.

>>59137860
No one uses either of those browser's.

>>59137860
>using the smiley with a carat nose
>>59139638
>"browser's"

>video games

Basically, yeah. If they lose that, there will be a yuuge migration

>>59137860
>he uses IE
Jesus Christ, download Chrome, will you?

>Microsoft Edge™
>Internet Explorer™
People that use those browser fucking deserve anything bad that happens to them.

Because Pajeets, that's why.

https://github.com/hfiref0x/UACME
here is a public git repo with 27(!) ways to bypass UAC

>>59137896
>>59139638
>>59140445
>>59140533
>Microsoft shills on damage control

>>59140768
UAC isn't a security feature.

>>59140844
But it literally is

>>59137860
>windows
/v/ austists are effected only

>>59140768
and how many of those are are unfixed wont get picked up by a/v

>>59137860
because their engineers don't even know what the fuck.

not that they are incompetent, but windows is apparently some kind of clusterfuck of bad design.

>>59141125
You're not very bright.

>>59141225
It still has code from the DOS era. They just add layer upon layer of spaghetti code with each release (for backwards compatibility reasons, supposedly) until no one knows what the fuck anything does anymore

File: 1475845918775.png (35KB, 714x379px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 714x379px

>>59141241
You're literally a retarded shill and street shitter my niggerboi

>>59141241
given that UAC is intended to prevent admin users from having applications they run inheret all of their privileges, I would call it a security feature

>>59140791
>Microsoft shills disparaging Windows 10's flagship feature
I habeeb it

>>59141272
>255 character limit dating back to the first versions of the WinAPI
>literally can't run pretty much any Win9x program without a fuckton of problems
Microsoft is just plain retarded, most Windows limitations have no reason to exist in fucking 2017, specially since pretty much anything that relies on them won't run on anything past NT 6.0
The reason those limits still exist is because Microsoft literally can't fix their old code, Explorer.exe still has 1996 era WinAPI limitations for no reason at all

>>59141274
He meant it sarcastically. He was calling UAC shit you autistic nigger.

>>59141272
You're thinking of the 9x codebase, that died with Millenium Edition. Everything consumer from XP and on has been based on the NT codebase, which isn't built on DOS.

>>59141314
>You're thinking of the 9x codebase, that died with Millenium Edition
There's stuff shared between the NT codebase and the Win9x codebase, the kernels are completely different but userland stuff has a shared ancestry, like Explorer, DirectX and a few other core programs
cmd dates back to the DOS days, there's a reason Microsoft was pushing PowerShell to replace their deprecated as fuck terminal/command line

>>59141279
It's meant to break the admin account in order to force software developers to write for limited user accounts. It's not a security feature.
Programs just wouldn't work under NT/2000/XP limited user accounts because the software was made for Windows 98, where there was no such thing. So everyone ran as admin. Since everyone ran as admin, developers kept making software that assumed admin access.
With Vista, Microsoft decided to make the admin account behave like a limited user account. This wasn't for security -- the admin account is supposed to be insecure. It was just to break the cycle.

>>59141414
MS themselves call it a security feature dumb shill

>>59141501
Read the white paper, not the marketing.

>>59141373
I would think it's the opposite. user land stuff needs to be updated to follow UI trends and hardware growth. kernel stuff tends to stay the same. There's no way they rewrote their kernel for ME. I bet some of the core bootloader code has been the same since 1985.
NTFS, unicode, and 64bit support were probably the biggest 3 things added that would not have existed in any original format in DOS.

>>59137860
>This makes the 2nd time (minimum) that Google has done this, they really should be helping to keep the Internet secure for everyone. If Google cannot propose a solution, being a competing browser, then the team should simply keep their mouths shut.

>>59141608
>user land stuff needs to be updated to follow UI trends and hardware growth
Not really, they reuse a lot of code on a lot of stuff
Paint was the same thing for about a decade, Notepad lasting even longer, and Explorer is full of 1996 limitations from the WinAPI

>>59141373

cmd.exe is exclusive to NT, desu. You're thinking of command.com.

you guys fail to realize that exfat/fat32 msdos part tables and the windows kernel all have inhereint designs that cant be fixed

there is vulnerabilities at the moment that can never be fixed

the windows kernel has all of the legacy 32 bit support back to 95

they just fire off the old devs and build over it with new code

no one even knows how to work on this dinosaur anymore and thats why they fired all their testers and makes the user do the patch test

its also why microsoft stop making new versions and they just make updates to windows 10 now

they need to use GPT Ext4/xfs and they need to use the Linux Kernel

GIVE IN TO THE GNU!!!

MUST ASSIMULATE!!!

WE ARE LEGION!!!

>>59141793
idk mang
intel has been doing just fine