Text 5423, 247 rader
Skriven 2005-06-26 11:01:42 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 5407 av John Beckett (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: An Army of Soulless 1's and 0's
===========================================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_017A_01C57A3E.702C2730
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You may not be hypocritical but many complained that it is Outlook's =
fault that it allowed people to open unsafe attachments even with the = harsh
warnings. As you note, people ignore the warnings. If unsafe = attachments
were allowed again would you praise Microsoft for providing = the choice or
criticize Microsoft as you have for provding the choice to = users even if
unsafe? Given your "I don't know" answer below I don't = think you are in a
position criticize.
As for making the Internet look like your own disk, I think you =
position is nonsense for several reasons. The first is that the = Internet
does not look like your own disk. Another is that it doesn't = matter as
Internet vs. local is not an issue. I think you are confusing = it with
trusted vs. distrusted both of which apply to both local, the = Internet, and
the intranet or home network.
Also you appear to have not read the lead in to the article that =
spawned this thread. Let's quote it again
For thousands of Internet users, the offer seemed all too alluring: =
revealing pictures of Jennifer Lopez, available at a mere click of the = mouse.
But the pictures never appeared. The offer was a ruse, and the click =
downloaded software code that turned the user's computer into a = launching pad
for Internet warfare.
As you can't see, the users are taking an explicit action to download =
something they want to download from the Internet.
Rich
"John Beckett" <FirstnameSurname@compuserve.com.omit> wrote in message =
news:42be76c6.33472751@216.144.1.254...
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:<42be015f@w3.nls.net>:
> I don't see an easy answer. The issue is not that users are =
warned=20
> when there is no reason too, it's that they got lucky. A better =
analogy=20
> than a combination lock is Russian roulette. It's always dangerous=20
> which is why there is a warning. What would you do?
>=20
> On a related note, how do you make a user that just wants things =
to=20
> "work" and clicks OK because it doesn't "work" if he makes another=20
> choice to care about such choices? You can remove the choice which =
is=20
> the position taken with Outlook and dangerous attachments. There =
were=20
> plenty that complained including folks here when that happened.
You're right, and in relation to 'what would I do?', all I can say is =
that
I don't know.
However, what I *do* know is that the original plan to make the =
Internet
look like your own disk drive, with Help and all manner of other
hair-brained schemes getting stuff from the Internet, was a *bad* =
idea.
To be more accurate, incorporating the Internet is a *great* idea, =
but
only *if* you first have a way to make it reasonably secure. I =
wouldn't
mind a few bugs that created vulnerabilities with consequent damage. =
But
the disasters from the simple exploits ("click here to undress =
Jennifer")
are rather predictable.
If I wanted to dominate world computing and own the Internet, and if I =
had
a spare billion for R&D, I would have proceeded with a little more
humility and caution than Microsoft.
In relation to Outlook blocking dangerous attachments: I am one of =
those
who loudly complained about the astonishing arrogance of a program =
that
failed to deliver my mail. This is typical of Microsoft's attitude - I =
am
so stupid that I must be managed. I would actually be happy to accept =
that
conclusion *if* there weren't thousands of compromised Windows =
computers
that form a testimonial to the failure of Windows to securely access =
the
Internet.
The real reason I whine about this issue so much is that I am totally
infuriated with the complete success of the Microsoft PR team who have
managed some incredible security debacles with astonishing success.
John
------=_NextPart_000_017A_01C57A3E.702C2730
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> You may not be =
hypocritical but many=20
complained that it is Outlook's fault that it allowed people to open =
unsafe=20
attachments even with the harsh warnings. As you note, people = ignore
the=20
warnings. If unsafe attachments were allowed again would you = praise=20
Microsoft for providing the choice or criticize Microsoft as you have = for=20
provding the choice to users even if unsafe? Given your "I don't =
know"=20
answer below I don't think you are in a position criticize.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> As for making the Internet =
look like=20
your own disk, I think you position is nonsense for several = reasons.
The=20
first is that the Internet does not look like your own disk. = Another
is=20
that it doesn't matter as Internet vs. local is not an issue. I = think
you=20
are confusing it with trusted vs. distrusted both of which apply to =
both=20
local, the Internet, and the intranet or home network.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Also you appear to have =
not read the=20
lead in to the article that spawned this thread. Let's quote it=20
again</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000 size=3D2>For thousands of =
Internet users,=20
the offer seemed all too alluring: revealing pictures of Jennifer =
Lopez,=20
available at a mere click of the mouse.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#008000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT color=3D#008000>But the =
pictures never=20
appeared. The offer was a ruse, and the click downloaded software code =
that=20
turned the user's computer into a launching pad for Internet=20
warfare.</FONT><BR></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As you can't see, the users are taking =
an explicit=20
action to download something they want to download from the=20
Internet.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"John Beckett" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:FirstnameSurname@compuserve.com.omit">FirstnameSurname@com=
puserve.com.omit</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42be76c6.33472751@216.144.1.254">news:42be76c6.33472751@216.=
144.1.254</A>...</DIV>"Rich"=20
<@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:<42be015f@w3.nls.net">news:<42be015f@w3.nls.net</A>>:<=
BR>> =20
I don't see an easy answer. The issue is not that users are =
warned=20
<BR>> when there is no reason too, it's that they got lucky. =
A better=20
analogy <BR>> than a combination lock is Russian roulette. =
It's=20
always dangerous <BR>> which is why there is a warning. What =
would=20
you do?<BR>> <BR>> On a related note, how do =
you make=20
a user that just wants things to <BR>> "work" and clicks OK because =
it=20
doesn't "work" if he makes another <BR>> choice to care about such=20
choices? You can remove the choice which is <BR>> the =
position taken=20
with Outlook and dangerous attachments. There were <BR>> =
plenty that=20
complained including folks here when that happened.<BR><BR>You're =
right, and=20
in relation to 'what would I do?', all I can say is that<BR>I don't=20
know.<BR><BR>However, what I *do* know is that the original plan to =
make the=20
Internet<BR>look like your own disk drive, with Help and all manner of =
other<BR>hair-brained schemes getting stuff from the Internet, was a =
*bad*=20
idea.<BR><BR>To be more accurate, incorporating the Internet is a=20
*great* idea, but<BR>only *if* you first have a way to make it=20
reasonably secure. I wouldn't<BR>mind a few bugs that created =
vulnerabilities=20
with consequent damage. But<BR>the disasters from the simple exploits =
("click=20
here to undress Jennifer")<BR>are rather predictable.<BR><BR>If I =
wanted to=20
dominate world computing and own the Internet, and if I had<BR>a spare =
billion=20
for R&D, I would have proceeded with a little more<BR>humility and =
caution=20
than Microsoft.<BR><BR>In relation to Outlook blocking dangerous =
attachments:=20
I am one of those<BR>who loudly complained about the astonishing =
arrogance of=20
a program that<BR>failed to deliver my mail. This is typical of =
Microsoft's=20
attitude - I am<BR>so stupid that I must be managed. I would actually =
be happy=20
to accept that<BR>conclusion *if* there weren't thousands of =
compromised=20
Windows computers<BR>that form a testimonial to the failure of Windows =
to=20
securely access the<BR>Internet.<BR><BR>The real reason I whine about =
this=20
issue so much is that I am totally<BR>infuriated with the complete =
success of=20
the Microsoft PR team who have<BR>managed some incredible security =
debacles=20
with astonishing success.<BR><BR>John<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_017A_01C57A3E.702C2730--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|