Conformity by humiliation. Works like a champ. Mike
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe Someone else on this list used to post the peoples names on the main Intranet page. It only took one major outbreak to fix that behavior. Roger ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE MCT Senior Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA http://www.peregrine.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 7:12 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Outlook blocked access to the following > potentially unsafe > > > At my last job we proposed a security policy whereby any user > who executed a > virus and infected the system would have to wear a dunce cap > and a T-Shirt > that says "I'm the idiot who opened the virus" for a week. > It was almost > made policy. Damn hippies shot it down... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:00 PM > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > potentially unsafe > > > Exactly why MS has to create patches like this particular one. > > Morons. > > What would be cool is if you could put a lock on their mail > box so that > when they open up Outlook there is an administrative message staring > them in the face. Before they could open any email they would have to > click OK and then retype what the administrative message was in a box > exactly as it was. If they don't get it right, they are > prompted again. > If a new virus goes around the admin could put a lock on all mailboxes > until they perform those steps. > > Kind like yelling at your kids. You tell them something and then you > make them repeat it back to you so that you realize they heard what > you said. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:49 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > potentially unsafe > > > Users will open anything regardless of what you say. > I remember ILOVEYOU, and a user. I had sent out emails all day long > warning about this virus that had penetrated to a few machines before > we had the DAT file for it. Anyhow, after an email an hour all day, I > was talking to this guy about it at his desk. As I am talking, he > is looking > at mail and opens it right then! He had a laptop, and I ripped the > PCCard NIC out, but too late. He just stood there and stared > at me, as I > turned and ran for my servers. Too late. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Carlson > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:45 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > potentially unsafe > > > Yes you should and you do. Edit the registry. > > No reason to blame MS for stupid people that open every > "clickmetof*ckupyourcomputer.exe" they get in an email. > > When are people going to take responsibility for stupid stuff they do > and their own incompetence. > > If you don't know how to drive are you going to blame the person that > runs into you? If you don't know how to use a shotgun are going to > blame the person who sold you the gun when you blow your arm off? > > I am amazed all the time when we get new hires, that cant > barely survive > without a sign on their desk reminding them to inhale and exhale > otherwise they will die, and throw them in front of a > computer and they > have no clue. We had to send a tech down to help a person log > into their > computer. They didn't know how to press CTRL+ALT+DEL. The keyboard had > CTL instead of CTRL on the key. > > Or the other fabulous ones that reboot their computer and > call us saying > their hard drive crashed when all they did was leave a non-bootable > floppy disk in the drive. > > People need to take responsibility and face up to the fact > that they are > computer illiterate or just plain dense when it comes to some of this > stuff. > > Because people think they are computer geniuses even though they > couldn't tell the difference between \ and / companies like Microsoft > have to put in their application things like this patch. > > My wife is a prime example. She will be the first to admint > she doesn't > know anything about computers ecept for the applications that she uses > all the time. If I am logged into my computer and she needs > it, she logs > into her own account because I have setup her account so that she cant > do any damage to the computer. > > Don't blame MS. They are just responding to all the crap they > got about > not being secure. If people wouldn't click on every stupid theng they > get via email, MS would ahev NEVER released that patch. > > There is no one to blame but morons. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wynkoop, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > potentially unsafe > > > I should have the option to block attachments or not! > > Explanation: > Some of us (those who work for universities with stupid staff members > and arrogant professors) don't have the option of blocking attachments > (Gosh forbid we infringe on anyone's "academic freedom"). That is > unless we wish to endure a never ending reign of sh*t from above. > Instead we have to work around the vunerabilities found in things such > as VBS, EXE, and COM files (which we have successfully done I might > add). We managed to succesfully ward off NIMDA, Code Red, and a rash > of other recent viruses without changing what users can and > can't do (see, > it can be done). Now outlook just gives my users one more reason to > jump down my throat when something doesn't work. Thanks MicroShaft. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:45 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > potentially unsafe > > > Even allowing your mail system to pass .EXE and .COM files is > a mistake. > You should thank MS for making OL block those types of files since you > don't. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 11:41 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > potentially unsafe > > > >>>>For such a typically minor patch? > Where did you get that idea? > > The Patch didnt break Outlook, your lack of preparation did. > > Over and Out. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn Connelly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:30 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > potentially unsafe > > > You know, it astounds me that so many IT people are blind to > Microsoft's > incompetence! > > BTW Mike, your 'car head light' analogy is not even relevant. A more > apt analogy would refer to the Ford Pinto's with the exploding gas > tanks. Sure the user could be mindful of driving only on roads with > no other vehicles, thereby preventing a back-end collision. The > 'solution' > in service patch 2 could be likened to Microsoft removing the gas tank > altogether. > > First, I read about 70% of the material related to this service patch. > There are about 20 pages of material relating to this patch and since > I run a dept. with over 50 systems and 6 servers ON MY OWN (no help, > not even support contracts), I really don't have the time (nor is > it humanly > possible) to read every patch/update/security document produced by > Microsoft alone (to say nothing about the 50+ other products I look > after). No, I'm not whining!! > > Simply put, this patch broke Outlook!! An email program that cannot > accept > .com and .exe's is damaged! Yes, yes, I know there are other methods > of > receiving files (such as zip'ed) but the point is that no other email > program such as Eudora, Groupwise, Netscape block these attachments. > All Microsoft had to do was to either disable the dangerous > capabilities of > .asp,.vbs, (et al) code OR entirely block access to this code. IT WAS > AS SIMPLE AS THAT!! > > Geezz, what's with some of you in this (supposed to be?) friendly > discussions group? > > I sent a message asking about this (yes, I admit it was > confrontational) > and I read return responses basically calling me an idiot > based on inane > assumptions! > > Of course, I had to risk installing this patch because the risk of an > Outlook-based virus outbreak out weighted the potential annoyance of > breaking Outlook. BTW, I have never experienced a virus outbreak in > the 6 years I've been with this company because of my pro-active > stance on these issues. > > Message to Lori: > "Project Plan and Test Plan Results"??? For such a typically minor > patch? How many IT people do you have in your organization? The last > time I had the time to do anything like that was in 98/99 for Y2K. I'm > beginning to feel very small; am I the only IT person in this > discussion group with an IT budget less than my wage? > > Message to Andy David: > See note about inane assumptions. > > Over and out, > Shawn > > -----Original Message----- > From: Exchange Discussions digest [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: November 6, 2001 1:00 AM > To: exchange digest recipients > Subject: exchange digest: November 05, 2001 > > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > potentially unsafe > at tach ments > From: "Mike Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 09:38:28 -0600 > X-Message-Number: 38 > > It amazes me when people complain about this patch. First developers > wanted the ability to autmoate/script everything to customize it for > their environment. "Give us the tools! Give us the ability!" Well > Microsoft did. Now that users and administrators are too stupid, yes I > mean stupid, to be mindful of attachments and security issues, they > now blame Microsoft for releasing a buggy product. Its like blaming a > car company, when you get rear-ended, for your brake lights being out. > > Similarily, the current crap about IIS being insecure is the same > situation. If the system administrators would apply patches when they > come out, and properly configure the machines, they would have no > problems. > > When a company like Microsoft has to write into their application a > security process that the administrators should do themselves, you > have no one to blame but moron users and incompetant administrators. > > No one in our company had the ability, except admins, to open .exe, > .vbs, wsh files from Outlook before they released the patch. We have a > policy that everything must be in .zip or other compressed archive > format like .sit or .tar. This way we can limit the vulnerabilites we > have. > > People want it easy to use and administer. With that comes > responsibility. If you cant take responsibility, you do not deserve > your job. > > BTW: A company I do development for, fired 2 administrators > because they > got hacked by Code Red and Nimda. They were too stupid and incompetent > to install patches that had been out for quite a long time. > > So again, blame stupid users and lazy administrators, not Microsoft. > > Also, if you blindly install patches and fixes without reading the > documentation first and then testing the patches, your job should be > on shakey ground. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20 > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 8:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > potentially unsafe > at tach ments > > > Sue Mosher and I (and so many many others) made it a personal goal to > speak ill of this patch whenever possible. In fact, we only refer to > it as the Hell Patch. Not sure who coined that one but it does fit. > > So Shawn, can you show me your Project Plan and Test Plan Results for > the application of this patch in a production environment? Or did you > just blindly apply it and are now here to get your money back? > > No soup for you. NEXT!! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:16 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > potentially unsafe > at tach ments > > > Ahhh, I love it.. > If you had bothered to do even a little research before > applying the SP > you would have known this... But of course, it's Microsoft's fault. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
