RE: more details in the paper

``read the paper''

I'm sorry to inform you that I've hard more than my fair share of annoyance this week. Besides, if the merit of this paper is nonexisting, why bother *at all*?

``The problem is real''

Yes, we already know that for quite some time, too.

``and confirmed by *working exploits*''

You've totally wasted your time here. We already knew there were problems and we've taken steps to correct them. What more do you offer?

``on current software/hardware.''

As Dijkstra would point out (although not quite in the same words), these problems arise from incorrect design, and can be fixed accordingly by making the design correct. Since this kind of software design is ages old, and the design issues have been explored thoroughly (and, hopefully, fixed in decently managed designs), this is a closed issue -- adding to it will only make the issue more opaque to newbies and the life of historians more difficult.

The time and effort wasted here would better be spent on either coming up with something new and/or actually finding and fixing remaining instances of such problems.