Talk:Kernel Patch Protection
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|To-do list for Kernel Patch Protection:|
"Some instances of"
I removed the phrase "Some instances of" because I think it is confusing and somewhat misleading. The KPP FAQ states
- "The Windows kernel is tested extensively before any release of the operating system to ensure a high level of quality."
And again, from Scott Field:
- "The kernel is the most carefully coded piece of the entire operating system...The BSoD is bad, so we want to do everything we can to keep customers from seeing it."
In other words, it is highly unlikely that a Blue Screen of Death error is going to come from Microsoft code. It is much more likely that the error came from unsupported patching. But even so, the current way the point is phrased,
- "The Blue Screen of Death, which results from serious errors in the kernel"
KAV kernel patching
I changed the remarks about KAV not patching the kernel to reflect the state of their software in June 2006. The original citations were only for Sophos and didn't even mention KAV, so I am not sure how KAV got mentioned as not patching the kernel. There is an article describing them doing so which is now cited by the page in the place of the old (and as far as I can tell inaccurate) statement. Skywing 02:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the fix. I don't know what I was thinking when I included Kaspersky in that statement. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
"The Blue Screen of Death, which results from serious errors in the kernel."
Drivers/programs that are trying to patch the kernel will cause the system to crash instantly. Without the protection the system would go on smoothly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Go on smoothly installing a rootkit? The idea is that with PatchGuard, the system crashes before the kernel patch can do any real damage. Kernel patches of all sources are notorious for causing security, stability, and performance problems. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I would argue that KPP is an idea towards Microkernel without actually having a microkernel architecture. As AMD64 supports four privilege levels and therefore true native microkernel implementation, it's IMHO a bad idea at all. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Do know if this is on the 64 bit of XP? That's what I have but somehow my friend patched my kernel I think. Or is it because they don't force you to run in test mode (DRM issues with unsigned drivers)? I know it was introduced in Server 2003, but I'm not sure about XP. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)