Text 5425, 286 rader
Skriven 2005-06-26 14:15:34 av Geo (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 5423 av Rich (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: An Army of Soulless 1's and 0's
===========================================
From: "Geo" <georger@nls.net>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00D7_01C57A59.851856D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Rich,
How could people mistake them for pictures if it's so clear the way the = UI
shows the difference between executable attachments and = non-executable
attachments?
Duh, if that doesn't highlight the real problem for you then you are = more
blind than the users.
Geo.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42beec78@w3.nls.net...
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 =
> 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_00D7_01C57A59.851856D0
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 6.00.2800.1505" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>How could people mistake them for =
pictures if it's=20
so clear the way the UI shows the difference between executable = attachments
and=20
non-executable attachments?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Duh, if that doesn't highlight the real =
problem for=20
you then you are more blind than the users.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Geo.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42beec78@w3.nls.net">news:42beec78@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<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=20
you are confusing it with trusted vs. distrusted both of which =
apply to=20
both 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=20
explicit 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=20
better analogy <BR>> than a combination lock is Russian =
roulette. =20
It's always dangerous <BR>> which is why there is a =
warning. What=20
would you do?<BR>> <BR>> On a related note, =
how do=20
you make a user that just wants things to <BR>> "work" and clicks =
OK=20
because it doesn't "work" if he makes another <BR>> choice to =
care about=20
such choices? You can remove the choice which is <BR>> the =
position=20
taken with Outlook and dangerous attachments. There were =
<BR>>=20
plenty that complained including folks here when that=20
happened.<BR><BR>You're right, and in relation to 'what would I =
do?', all I=20
can say is that<BR>I don't know.<BR><BR>However, what I *do* know is =
that=20
the original plan to make the Internet<BR>look like your own disk =
drive,=20
with Help and all manner of other<BR>hair-brained schemes getting =
stuff from=20
the Internet, was a *bad* idea.<BR><BR>To be more accurate, =
incorporating=20
the Internet is a *great* idea, but<BR>only *if* you first =
have a way=20
to make it reasonably secure. I wouldn't<BR>mind a few bugs that =
created=20
vulnerabilities with consequent damage. But<BR>the disasters from =
the simple=20
exploits ("click here to undress Jennifer")<BR>are rather=20
predictable.<BR><BR>If I wanted to dominate world computing and own =
the=20
Internet, and if I had<BR>a spare billion for R&D, I would have=20
proceeded with a little more<BR>humility and caution than=20
Microsoft.<BR><BR>In relation to Outlook blocking dangerous =
attachments: I=20
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=20
happy to accept that<BR>conclusion *if* there weren't thousands of=20
compromised Windows computers<BR>that form a testimonial to the =
failure of=20
Windows to securely access the<BR>Internet.<BR><BR>The real reason I =
whine=20
about this issue so much is that I am totally<BR>infuriated with the =
complete success of the Microsoft PR team who have<BR>managed some=20
incredible security debacles with astonishing=20
success.<BR><BR>John<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00D7_01C57A59.851856D0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|