From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-22 05:19:40 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newscore.univie.ac.at!193.154.160.102.MISMATCH!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!newsfeed.kpnqwest.at!newsfeed.wu-wien.ac.at!not-for-mail From: Markus Mottl Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:18:28 +0000 (UTC) Organization: University of Economics and Business Administration, Vienna, Austria Message-ID: <9m07uk$jn0$1@bird.wu-wien.ac.at> References: <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <87n15lxzzv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com> <4a885870.0108112341.7ce02ac0@posting.google.com> <3B834E5D.B0D26AB1@adaworks.com> <9lvsic$bet9s$1@ID-9852.news.dfncis.de> <0sDnZRVkz5qL@eisner.encompasserve.org> <3b83847d.1117251944@news.worldonline.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: miss.wu-wien.ac.at X-Trace: bird.wu-wien.ac.at 998482708 20192 137.208.107.17 (22 Aug 2001 12:18:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news-admin@wu-wien.ac.at NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:18:28 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-981225 ("Volcane") (UNIX) (OSF1/V4.0 (alpha)) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12216 comp.lang.c:76090 comp.lang.c++:84802 comp.lang.functional:7614 Date: 2001-08-22T12:18:28+00:00 List-Id: In comp.lang.functional Richard Bos wrote: > Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote: >> I was under the impression that despite the troubles in the press reports, >> the Navy was taking a full-steam-ahead attitude toward greater dependence >> on Windows NT for such mission-critical roles. > That is good news. For the rest of us, that is ;->. I'd suggest that a new ABM-treaty be written, which allows the US to build ABMs against the former agreements, but requires them to let these missiles be controlled by Windows CE. I'd feel much safer this way... ;) Regards, Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl