Linux-Advocacy Digest #396, Volume #26 Sun, 7 May 00 13:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (abraxas)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (abraxas)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (abraxas)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Built in Virus Scanners! (abraxas)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Mike")
Re: Built in Virus Scanners! (Charlie Ebert)
computer viruses on LINUX (MerefBast)
Re: Built in Virus Scanners! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Rich C")
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("Steve Allen")
Re: Built in Virus Scanners! (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 7 May 2000 16:10:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any vb script that makes system calls, fetches data from a URL, modifies
> the registry, looks at the e-mail address book. These would be good
> starters. Any binary executable too.
The obvious answer to the address book problem is a key-encryption access
scheme---which has been suggested to microsoft (both internally and
externally) but has never been close to being implemented.
> The whole idea of running a program without an authoritative origin is
> problematic. There is some debate about this happening in Linux, while
> it "could" happen in Linux I doubt, very much, that it "would" happen in
> Linux because security is an important concern amongst its developers.
Sure, it could happen in linux and probably eventually WILL happen in
linux---as long as common unix concepts like WHEEL are not supported
(apparantly because it gives the administrator fascist control over its
users--heh), linux will have some notable security weaknesses.
But, as we've seen, not NEARLY as many as windows.
> One last note, if malissa happened on a Linux e-mail client, you can be
> sure "ILOVEYOU" would not have had a chance, because the author of an
> e-mail program that allowed such a virus, would have fixed it. Unlike MS
> who has proven that, as a monopoly, it does not need to care.
I think its interesting and more than a little comical that the only
department at my place of employment that was able to retrieve its
mail for most of last week was engineering.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: 7 May 2000 16:12:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Boris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Boris wrote:
>> >
>> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >
>> > > Given the nature of both systems, i.e. the normalcy of receiving data
>> > > from unknown origins, shouldn't e-mail have the same restrictions and
>> > > safety precautions that browsers have?
>> > I use IE5/OE5 on Win2000. And most security settings in OE are inherited from IE.
>For
>> > example, if I disabled ActiveX controls in IE and opened HTML post on news group,
>and
> that
>> > message contains ActiveX control, that control won't be able to execute.
>> >
>>
>> So, OK, what's the answer? I think we all agree that something like the
>> "ILOVEYOU" virus will continue to happen in increasing frequency. How do
>> you stop it? You can't keep arresting 14 year olds everytime this
>> happens, you have to decide that security is important.
> There are enterprise-level AV solutions out there. They scan e-mail as it enters
>corporate
> network: on firewall, etc. Once new virus has been identified and signature list
>updated,
> that virus won't be able to pass firewall. The critical factor here is how fast new
>virus
> spreads (across Internet).
Neat. How much do THEY cost? I'd like to do a cost comparison between that solution
and mine. :)
> Sysadmin
Please call them NT admins at least...you're embarrasing me.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: 7 May 2000 16:13:38 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Boris wrote:
>> >
>> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >
>> > > Given the nature of both systems, i.e. the normalcy of receiving data
>> > > from unknown origins, shouldn't e-mail have the same restrictions and
>> > > safety precautions that browsers have?
>> > I use IE5/OE5 on Win2000. And most security settings in OE are inherited
> from IE. For
>> > example, if I disabled ActiveX controls in IE and opened HTML post on
> news group, and that
>> > message contains ActiveX control, that control won't be able to execute.
>> >
>>
>> So, OK, what's the answer? I think we all agree that something like the
>> "ILOVEYOU" virus will continue to happen in increasing frequency. How do
>> you stop it? You can't keep arresting 14 year olds everytime this
>> happens, you have to decide that security is important.
> 1. Get out a clue stick and *cough*re-educate*cough* people who open
> attachments they know nothing about.
> 2. Get your sysadmin to distribute a little registry patch to make the
> default action of a .vbs file to "Edit" instead of "Open". Have said patch
> installed during a login script.
Aaaahhh...the functionality and ease of use of windowsNT.....
Maybe you guys were right all along...
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 02:21:18 +1000
"Alan Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bart Oldeman wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 6 May 2000, Rich C wrote:
> >
> > > "Bart Oldeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > On Sat, 6 May 2000, Rich C wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > But this DOES bring out an inherent flaw in OE, as it doesn't
> > > distinguish
> > > > > between "opening" a document file, such as text or a jpeg, and
"opening"
> > > a
> > > > > program, ie., running it.
>
> As I understand it, OE doesn't know or really care what type of file an
> attachment is. It's just executing the program that's associated with
> the file extension and passing the file name ("c:\tmp\whatever.ext") to
> the program. To OE, it's no different than launching notepad to view a
> text file. It's probably just trying to execute the file name and the
> OS (or Explorer) is looking up the file type in the registry to get the
> program name and starting it. If this is so then placing the blame on
> OE is wrong.
Ah, someone understands.
All OE does when an attachment is "launched" is to perform the default
action, as defined in explorer, for that file. Eg a jpeg might open in IE,
or an mp3 will play in winamp. For a .vbs file, the default action is to
run it (for obvious reasons).
> > > Yes, but not as dangerous as an e-mail client that does not do enough
to
> > > distinguish an EXECUTABLE program from a text or graphic document.
> >
> > That's exactly what I mean. The really annoying pop-up I described
should
> > _only_ occur if the program is EXECUTABLE and potentially dangerous, not
> > if it's just a jpeg or a text file or even a safe java application.
>
> Wouldn't an easier fix be for the program (whatever it's called) that
> reads the script and executes the commands just not auto-execute the
> script? When a file is double clicked it would bring up an editor with
> the script in an edit window.
It would. A couple of lines of .reg file would change the default action
for a .vbs file from "open" to "edit".
> To automate a task you would create an
> icon with the command "whs -run SafeScript.vbs".
The "open" action does that already for you - it inserts the "whs -run" (or
whatever it is) in fron of the file you've double clicked.
> OE would still need to check for .exe, .com, .bat and whatever else the
> OS runs natively.
No, OE shouldn't be involved at all in "checking". That's the job of a
virus scanner.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 02:22:50 +1000
"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Sun, 7 May 2000 20:50:50 +1000...
> ...and Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > > >If people read and took heed of warnings, this wouldn't have
happened.
> > > >Indeed, if this had happened on Unix systems with an attached script
file
> > > >and a bunch of instruction telling the users to save it, set it
> > executable
> > > >and run it, the exact same dumb users would have done it.
> > > >
> > > No. Because these extra steps would give the necessary time to think a
> > > little about what it is. Also Window's behaviour of by default
> > > hiding the extension of files fooled the users into thinking it was
> > > "A-LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.HTM" instead of
"A-LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.HTM.vbs".
> >
> > Users who do this sort of thing *don't think*, that's why they do it.
>
> Whoa. So you admit that Windows, too, cannot be used in a safe way by
> dumb users?
No tool capable of doing harm can be used in a safe way by dumb people. At
least, I've never seen one.
> It has always been a major complaint of Windows advocates
> that one needs to think to use Linux.
I believe that argument is more along the lines of one needs to know far too
much about the OS and the hardware to use Linux.
> So one needs to think to use
> Windows, too... There goes an argument.
Hardly.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Built in Virus Scanners!
Date: 7 May 2000 16:16:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [... long incoherent screed unceremoniously snipped ...]
>> Do so without fear of viruses as the basic
>> structure of Linux doesn't allow installation nor execution of
>> programs without the prior approval of root on my system. Root has to
>> be involved before a program is installed or declared runnable in my
>> user account.
> Get real, Charlie. I'm supposed to call a sysadmin before I can run a simple
> script?
If you're a windows user, absolutely. As has been proven repeatedly by the
virus infestation of your brood, you cannot be trusted with computers. You
should have to get permission from your administrator before you tie your
shoes in the morning.
> And what is she going to do? Inspect it first, to make sure it's
> okay? And, God help us, what if I actually _write_a_program_? You know, one
> that needs to be compiled? I can compile it, but then I have to call the
> sysadmin every time I want to test it?
Yes, and you have no one to blame but yourself.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 16:41:10 GMT
"Jeff Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike wrote:
>
> Netscape can automatically execute a program. But, unlike Outlook, the
program
> will be a java applet. And, java was designed from the ground up to be
secure
> under these conditions, as it runs in a "sandbox" which deliberately
prevents
> any code that could write to a users disk, as well as other limitations.
This is pretty easy to test Jeff, something which you would be well advised
to do in the future.
I did test it, and you're wrong. I created a file, called trash.tmp. Then I
created a perl script, containing the line "del 'trash.tmp';".
I sent it to myself. I read my mail using Netscape mail.
Netscape did the same thing that Outlook did: it showed me the email, and
showed me that there was an attachment. When I clicked on the attachment, it
warned me about attachments. When I clicked on 'open it' instead of 'save
it', it opened it and ran it. It deleted the trash.tmp file.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Built in Virus Scanners!
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 16:43:01 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 5/7/00, 9:41:08 AM, "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re:=20
Built in Virus Scanners!:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [... long incoherent screed unceremoniously snipped ...]
> > Do so without fear of viruses as the basic
> > structure of Linux doesn't allow installation nor execution of
> > programs without the prior approval of root on my system. Root has =
to
> > be involved before a program is installed or declared runnable in my=
> > user account.
> Get real, Charlie. I'm supposed to call a sysadmin before I can run a =
simple
> script? And what is she going to do? Inspect it first, to make sure=20
it's
> okay? And, God help us, what if I actually _write_a_program_? You=20
know, one
> that needs to be compiled? I can compile it, but then I have to call=20
the
> sysadmin every time I want to test it?
> Wouldn't it be a whole lot more productive if you just left the power =
switch
> in the 'off' position?
Spoken like a true 3 year old.
Mike,
During this last virus attack, many employee's of many companies were=20
reminded of
THEIR companies policy to NOT open e-mail's attachments! That is they=20
are supposed
to NOT! =20
When you open your E-mail attachment on Linux you will just be able to=20
READ it.
It won't EXECUTE and blow the shit out of everything.
I thought I would clarify that for you.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MerefBast)
Subject: computer viruses on LINUX
Date: 07 May 2000 16:43:48 GMT
Hi. I am looking for information to compare the susceptibility of various
operating systems to computer viruses.
I am particularly interested in references for factual information about the
kinds, nature, and number of security holes, as well as the number of actual
viruses, worms, and Trojan Horses for each operating system.
A copy of the information to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> would be appreciated.
Thanks....
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Built in Virus Scanners!
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 16:45:53 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 5/7/00, 5:42:02 AM, "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding=20
Re: Built in Virus Scanners!:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Microsoft products don't have built in Virus scanning.
> That's something you have to add at both the workstation
> and server level.
> But a virus scanner will do little to stop a VB script.
> It's more intelligent to have an operating system which
> forces a user or a system administrator to declare a file
> or script as an executable BEFORE it can be launched.
> This is the basic flaw in the Microsoft system as any
> file can be deemed executable simply by changing it's
> extention. And a systems administrator can't change that.
> Where in the Unix or Linux or BSD models, the *NIX's, we
> see that you have to delcare a file as an executable OR
> allow script launching by giving access to programs such
> as perl before executables may be triggered by scripts.
> The *nix world doesn't use extensions to tell the operating
> system the MEANING of file structures.
> [Boris]
> So what? Who cares if it's extension or execute bit. If user received =
e-mail with attached
> executable and he wants to execute it, should he go ask sysadmin for=20
permission or what?
> Most damage a virus can do is to either sniff or destroy user's data, =
because system and
> application files are easy to restore. And you don't have more than=20
one user on PC,
> typically; even if you did, NTFS protects each user's files. For=20
example, if me and Joe
> both have files on the same NT box and neither of us has admin access =
and sysadmin
> protected us from each-other by setting permissions appropriately, any=
=20
executable run by
> me will NOT be able to destroy (or even view) Joe's data (and vice=20
versa).
> The main problem with "I love you" virus is speed with which it=20
replicates itself. And
> this is MS problem because they allow easy scripting/programmatic=20
access to Outlook
> including Address Book. This is how article on www.news.com describes =
the problem: lots of
> features in Office and most of those features can be controlled=20
programmatically (via
> VBScript).
> So once again, it's NOT NT problem at all. It has to do with abundance=
=20
of features in
> Office and easy programmatic access to those features.
> Boris
NO BORIN,
The main problem with the Microsoft Virus is it spread itself and=20
matastisized itself
to virtually everything in my office. =20
I'm afraid you have to step down now and return to the audience sir.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 02:53:47 +1000
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > Please detail to us how you're going to detect the difference between
> > "dangerous" and "safe" attachments.
>
> Any vb script that makes system calls, fetches data from a URL, modifies
> the registry, looks at the e-mail address book. These would be good
> starters. Any binary executable too.
So a script I run monthly to delete a whole bunch of files off my drive is
going to get stopped as a virus ?
A script I have that sends out a monthly letter to a mailing list ?
A script to regularly download a web page for me ?
A sysadmin-supplied script to update the registry ?
> The whole idea of running a program without an authoritative origin is
> problematic. There is some debate about this happening in Linux, while
> it "could" happen in Linux I doubt, very much, that it "would" happen in
> Linux because security is an important concern amongst its developers.
The _only_ reason it "wouldn't happen" in Linux is because, by and large,
the users are somewhat more educated in the realm of computers and how they
can screw up. When/If Linux becomes more mainstream, THIS WILL CHANGE.
Don't try and kid yourself otherwise.
> One last note, if malissa happened on a Linux e-mail client, you can be
> sure "ILOVEYOU" would not have had a chance, because the author of an
> e-mail program that allowed such a virus, would have fixed it. Unlike MS
> who has proven that, as a monopoly, it does not need to care.
It's nothing that can be "fixed" because it's a) not an exploit and b) not a
bug. The program is acting precisely as designed, opening a *user approved*
attachment.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 12:50:37 -0400
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8f39fj$3r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bart Oldeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 6 May 2000, Rich C wrote:
> >
> > > "Bart Oldeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > On Sat, 6 May 2000, Rich C wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > But this DOES bring out an inherent flaw in OE, as it doesn't
> > > distinguish
> > > > > between "opening" a document file, such as text or a jpeg, and
> "opening"
> > > a
> > > > > program, ie., running it.
> > > >
> > > > As it is, any e-mail client (not just OE) that can execute
> > > > dangerous attachments is dangerous.
> > >
> > > Yes, but not as dangerous as an e-mail client that does not do enough
to
> > > distinguish an EXECUTABLE program from a text or graphic document.
> >
> > That's exactly what I mean. The really annoying pop-up I described
should
> > _only_ occur if the program is EXECUTABLE and potentially dangerous, not
> > if it's just a jpeg or a text file or even a safe java application.
>
> Please detail to us how you're going to detect the difference between
> "dangerous" and "safe" attachments.
OK, class, pay attention:
A DANGEROUS attachment is ANY executable program or script.
A SAFE attachment is ANY data file for which there is a registered
application in the system. These files are .txt, .jpg, .htm(l), .gif, .bmp,
etc. which are simply passed to the registered application and not executed
directly. This includes file types which the email program can open or
preview directly. If there is a virus embedded in such a file (such as a
word macro virus in a .doc file) it is up to the application to take
appropriate security measures.
There is no reason for Outlook [express] or any email program that can open
or execute attachments to warn us about file types that have registered
applications and are not programs, and have no chance of being executed.
>
> > > The SAME virus warning occurs whether or not you are opening an exe
> file, a
> > > .vbs file or a .gif, or .jpg file (I don't know about .txt files--I
> don't
> > > have any in my in box at the moment. Funny, though, the warning
DOESN'T
> show
> > > up with .avi files or .doc files.)
> >
> > That is really stupid of OE.
>
> As to his last two examples, it sounds to me as if someone has set the
> "don't ask this again" option once when opening an .avi or .doc file.
Or perhaps it's because MS "owns" these [proprietary] file formats?
>
> The same dialog is used, I would imagine, for a reason of programming
> efficiency. The more special cases you have to add, the more of a pain it
> becomes to write and the more of a pain it becomes to mantain.
But for a registered file type, where the file is simply passed as an
argument to the application, no warning should be necessary.
>
> > > > They could do the following: if the attachment has potentially
> > > > dangerous executable contents it brings up the following (after a
> virus
> > > > scan or whatever):
> > >
> > > They COULD just not execute programs or scripts from Outlook. If MS is
> so
> > > friggin' smart, why don't they invoke an installed virus scanning
> program on
> > > the file before running it? (Oh, that's right, I forgot, there is no
> > > Microsoft Antivirus program. Oh well, forget it then, they can just
keep
> > > reminding me that Outlook is not the default mail/news reader.)
> >
> > A virus scanning program that cannot detect the ILOVEYOU virus yet is
> > not very useful in this particular case.
>
> And such a "virus" would be basically impossible to detect without prior
> knowledge of its existence.
>
Which is why a warning that didn't pop up ALL THE TIME would warn users more
effectively, and point out to the unobservant user that this file was indeed
a program and not a text file.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "Steve Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 16:44:10 GMT
Oh dear haven't we had a bad day. I love Linux as an operating system as it
does exactly what I want it to do as opposed to what somebody else has
decided I should do, having said that I would agree with your comments about
it replacing Windows or co-existing with it in the average family home.
Your comments about competition for printers and net access are very true
....however, I have Linux co-existing with Win NT and all works well (I use
Linux as a development platform and in this role it leaves Windows in the
shade) the kids on the other hand use Windows (thus ensuring compatibility
with software used at school) for office type work (and yes its very good at
it), all true network functionality is provided by Linux. To sum it up
there are particular strengths and weaknesses to each OS and no Mrs Smith
down the road won't be able to set Linux up out of the box to run a network.
But then to come back to your original point, its a question of environment
and one of the considerations (as with any software deployment) is the level
of technical competency of the would be users and administrators (or to be
fair their willingness to learn). So you see the home can be a suitable
environment depending on who is in the home to look after it.
Best wishes
Steve Allen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> First off, Linux is a great operating system and given the proper
> venue it is a good choice.
>
> However, to believe for a moment that Linux could replace, or even
> co-exist with Windows in the home environment is a pipe dream fantasy
> of the Linux zealots.
>
> As an example I offer up the home networking problem. The reality, and
> it is a good one, is that home networking is becoming a big reality.
> Families with children are competing with each other for internet
> time, printers, scanners and so forth. Most new home construction
> includes pre-wired Cat 5 cable as an option.
>
> Anyway how is a home network with internet connection sharing, printer
> sharing, scanner sharing and firewall set up easily under Linux?
>
> Answer; it isn't.
>
> Oh sure you can play with Samba if you happen to not have a
> Win-printer and assuming you are able to figure out how to set it up
> it might work ok. You can play with ip masquerading and ip-chains and
> so forth, entering all kinds of crap in text files and so forth.
> That is of course assuming you know what to enter. How many times in
> the Linux help system do you see "ask your system administrator"
> mentioned?
> So who is the sys admin of a home network??
>
> Know how you do all of the above with Windows 98se or Win2k?
> Select internet connection sharing in help and the wizard does it all
> for you.
>
> Download ZoneAlarm for free and it works without a single amount of
> input required by the user to configure it.
>
> It simply asks you if you want a particular task to be allowed to take
> place (Realplayer accessing the internet as an example).
>
> Resource sharing?
>
> Place a check in the sharing box...That's it..Wizard does it for you
> when you select "How do I share my printer"
>
> That's the way it should be.
>
> I spent 3 weeks trying to get a network working under Linux and
> finally gave up. And another thing, the default set up is a real
> security risk even selecting Medium security under Mandrake. FTP,
> Telnet and other ports were wide open.
>
> Sorry Linux Zealots but you should read more of the the Linux
> install/set up groups to see how many folks have had it up to their
> ears with Linux and more will follow.
>
> Take off the rose colored glasses and look into the world of reality
> for a change. Linux is certainly improving, but it isn't even close to
> Windows.
>
> Windows is a much, much better choice.
>
>
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Built in Virus Scanners!
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 16:48:14 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 5/7/00, 9:51:09 AM, "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re:=20
Built in Virus Scanners!:
> "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:iFcR4.94$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > So once again, it's NOT NT problem at all. It has to do with abundan=
ce=20
of
> features in
> > Office and easy programmatic access to those features.
> Ahhh, finally the advantages of Unix are becoming clear: by making
> _everything_ painfully difficult, it prevents us from doing much of
> _anything_, including bad things.
> -- Mike --
> "Thank you sir, and may I have another!"
> -- Fraternity pledge, as he is being hit with a paddle, in 'Animal =
House'
> -- Unix user, as they attempt to do something useful (or not)
NO MIKE,
God dammit Mike. =20
If you click on the file you can READ it. It won't execute!
If you want to execute it, then you have to tell the operating system=20
to do so!
But a systems administrator CAN turn that execution declaration=20
feature OFF so you
can't use it. And that would be between YOU and YOUR company.
There. Are we all dry now again. Here's something to chew on.
Charlie
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
