Text 5428, 340 rader
Skriven 2005-06-26 11:36:36 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 5425 av Geo (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_0190_01C57A43.4FA4B900
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Maybe, because the people are told they are pictures. It doesn't =
matter. As for you trying to connect this to the NYT artcle, you are = either
as much an idiot as tony or you too have not read even the lead = in which
describes downloading from the web. Your fixation on email and = your false
claims on the subject have no relevance. If you believe the = author of the
New York Times article was wrong or lying you should ask = him.
I should remind you again of one particular false claim you make in =
an attempt to mislead folks into believing your nonsense. There is a = big
bold warning for unsafe attachments and not for safe ones. This is = how
people can clearly tell the difference. Well, some people. = Obviously you
can not.
Rich
"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message news:42bef09e@w3.nls.net...
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=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_0190_01C57A43.4FA4B900
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> Maybe, because the people =
are told=20
they are pictures. It doesn't matter. As for you trying to =
connect=20
this to the NYT artcle, you are either as much an idiot as tony or = you
too=20
have not read even the lead in which describes downloading from=20
the web. Your fixation on email and your false claims on =
the=20
subject have no relevance. If you believe the author of the New = York
Times=20
article was wrong or lying you should ask him.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I should remind you again =
of one=20
particular false claim you make in an attempt to mislead folks into =
believing=20
your nonsense. There is a big bold warning for unsafe attachments = and
not=20
for safe ones. This is how people can clearly tell the =
difference. =20
Well, some people. Obviously you can not.</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>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Geo" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> wrote=20
in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42bef09e@w3.nls.net">news:42bef09e@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<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=20
it's so clear the way the UI shows the difference between executable=20
attachments and 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=20
for 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=20
many complained that it is Outlook's fault that it allowed people to =
open=20
unsafe attachments even with the harsh warnings. As you note, =
people=20
ignore the warnings. If unsafe attachments were allowed again =
would=20
you praise Microsoft for providing the choice or criticize Microsoft =
as you=20
have for provding the choice to users even if unsafe? Given =
your "I=20
don't know" answer below I don't think you are in a position=20
criticize.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> As for making the =
Internet look=20
like your own disk, I think you position is nonsense for several=20
reasons. The first is that the Internet does not look like =
your own=20
disk. Another is that it doesn't matter as Internet vs. local =
is not=20
an issue. I think you are confusing it with trusted vs.=20
distrusted both of which apply to both local, the Internet, and the =
intranet=20
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=20
the 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=20
users, the offer seemed all too alluring: revealing pictures of =
Jennifer=20
Lopez, 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=20
that 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 =
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=20
about such choices? You can remove the choice which is =
<BR>> the=20
position taken with Outlook and dangerous attachments. There =
were=20
<BR>> plenty that complained including folks here when that=20
happened.<BR><BR>You're right, and in relation to 'what would I =
do?', all=20
I can say is that<BR>I don't know.<BR><BR>However, what I *do* =
know is=20
that the original plan to make the Internet<BR>look like your own =
disk=20
drive, with Help and all manner of other<BR>hair-brained schemes =
getting=20
stuff from the Internet, was a *bad* idea.<BR><BR>To be more =
accurate,=20
incorporating the Internet is a *great* idea, but<BR>only =
*if* you=20
first have a way to make it reasonably secure. I wouldn't<BR>mind =
a few=20
bugs that created vulnerabilities with consequent damage. =
But<BR>the=20
disasters from the simple exploits ("click here to undress=20
Jennifer")<BR>are rather predictable.<BR><BR>If I wanted to =
dominate world=20
computing and own the Internet, and if I had<BR>a spare billion =
for=20
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=20
attachments: I am one of those<BR>who loudly complained about the=20
astonishing arrogance of a program that<BR>failed to deliver my =
mail. This=20
is typical of Microsoft's attitude - I am<BR>so stupid that I must =
be=20
managed. I would actually be happy to accept that<BR>conclusion =
*if* there=20
weren't thousands of compromised Windows computers<BR>that form a=20
testimonial to the failure of Windows to securely access=20
the<BR>Internet.<BR><BR>The real reason I whine about this issue =
so much=20
is that I am totally<BR>infuriated with the complete success of =
the=20
Microsoft PR team who have<BR>managed some incredible security =
debacles=20
with astonishing=20
success.<BR><BR>John<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></H=
TML>
------=_NextPart_000_0190_01C57A43.4FA4B900--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|