Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!seismo!mcvax!enea!tut!santra!news
From: news@santra.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Protection problem real?? (was Re: Intel Microprocessors)
Message-ID: <7180@santra.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Aug-87 08:07:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: santra.7180
Posted: Fri Aug 14 08:07:46 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Aug-87 03:20:32 EDT
References: <1112@lznv.ATT.COM> <399@aucs.UUCP> <3225@cucca.columbia.edu> <789@unccvax.UUCP> <1924@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU> <320@l5comp.UUCP>
Reply-To: jel@hutcs.hut.fi (Jerry Lahti)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Lines: 11

In article <320@l5comp.UUCP> scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes:
]
]Why? Intel goofed once again in it's architectural design. The chip IS NOT
]fully protected while running in protected mode. A user level program can
]bring the chip, and all the other users on that chip, down quite easily.
]And there's not a DAMN thing the OS writer can do about it.
]
Is this true or just a piece of net misinformation?  Could someone say
how this might happen?

	/Jerry Lahti