On 01/23/2014 06:13 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote: > On 1/23/2014 5:12 PM, Mirimir wrote: >> I wouldn't run VMs on Windows with any expectation of privacy. Only a >> year or so ago, shellbags were not common knowledge. Only the forensic >> community and hard-core black hat types knew about them. It's arguable >> that many similar features in Windows remain undocumented.[1] > > [1] I'd like to hear more. "Arguable" mean there is some evidence?
According to <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arguable>, "arguable" means "open to argument, dispute, or question" and "that can be plausibly or convincingly argued". It's a word that I picked up working with lawyers. Basically, it means that the proposition isn't clearly and obviously false, and that arguing for it isn't obviously disingenuous. It's how plaintiffs typically assert claims in complaints, when they don't yet have the necessary evidence, some of which will be obtained in discovery. The best evidence for undocumented privacy leaks in Windows is all of the previously undocumented privacy leaks that are now documented. This about sums it up: "Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice, shame on me. Trick me three times and I get what I deserve!" -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
