<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ptacek vs. Lawson: 2007 predictions revisited</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rdist.root.org/2008/01/14/ptacek-vs-lawson-2007-predictions-revisited/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rdist.root.org/2008/01/14/ptacek-vs-lawson-2007-predictions-revisited/</link>
	<description>Embedded security, crypto, software protection</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:19:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nate Lawson</title>
		<link>http://rdist.root.org/2008/01/14/ptacek-vs-lawson-2007-predictions-revisited/#comment-4460</link>
		<dc:creator>Nate Lawson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:03:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rdist.root.org/2008/01/14/ptacek-vs-lawson-2007-predictions-revisited/#comment-4460</guid>
		<description>Yeah, Tom&#039;s been gloating about that although I like to focus on the other half (that it didn&#039;t involve malware or an actual threat to that particular flight).  :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, Tom&#8217;s been gloating about that although I like to focus on the other half (that it didn&#8217;t involve malware or an actual threat to that particular flight).  :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andreas</title>
		<link>http://rdist.root.org/2008/01/14/ptacek-vs-lawson-2007-predictions-revisited/#comment-4459</link>
		<dc:creator>Andreas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:26:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rdist.root.org/2008/01/14/ptacek-vs-lawson-2007-predictions-revisited/#comment-4459</guid>
		<description>Actually, you guys were half right on the TSA prediction. One woman (UK nationality, flying UK/US) had her laptop seized by US customs and they demanded the passwords for it so they could access the info on it. Scary times....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, you guys were half right on the TSA prediction. One woman (UK nationality, flying UK/US) had her laptop seized by US customs and they demanded the passwords for it so they could access the info on it. Scary times&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: newsham</title>
		<link>http://rdist.root.org/2008/01/14/ptacek-vs-lawson-2007-predictions-revisited/#comment-4399</link>
		<dc:creator>newsham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:30:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rdist.root.org/2008/01/14/ptacek-vs-lawson-2007-predictions-revisited/#comment-4399</guid>
		<description>I do not share Tom&#039;s enthusiasm for C++ bugs.
&quot;A huge chunk of our infrastructure was written in C++ in the mid-late ’90s, and until recently there was a mass delusion that C++ was safer than C.&quot;  The mass delusion remains, largely, fact.  C++ code is mostly still safer than  C code.  The C++ bugs are real, but the C bugs are realerer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I do not share Tom&#8217;s enthusiasm for C++ bugs.<br />
&#8220;A huge chunk of our infrastructure was written in C++ in the mid-late ’90s, and until recently there was a mass delusion that C++ was safer than C.&#8221;  The mass delusion remains, largely, fact.  C++ code is mostly still safer than  C code.  The C++ bugs are real, but the C bugs are realerer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
