>"User Profiles should be able to be protected with passwords."
>
>If you agree with the above statement, please vote for this BUG to be
>fixed here:
>
>http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
[...]
"Its more a candidate for a distributor to implement it doesn't fit
with Mozilla's gene
Jeandré wrote:
>> "User Profiles should be able to be protected with passwords."
>>
>> If you agree with the above statement, please vote for this BUG to be
>> fixed here:
>>
>> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
>
>
> [...]
>
> "Its more a candidate for a distributor to imple
H.H.Cahit Oz wrote:
> Jeandré wrote:
>
>>> "User Profiles should be able to be protected with passwords."
>>>
>>> If you agree with the above statement, please vote for this BUG to be
>>> fixed here:
>>>
>>> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
>>
> I think to vote for this bug i
ravi narayan wrote:
>
> and i think its silly to call it stupid. it may not be worth the
> time of the mozilla development team, but a good argument can be
> made for the validity of the request. such protection as requested
> in the bug might indeed be an OS function, but since the most
> common
>and i think its silly to call it stupid. it may not be worth the
>provide but which mozilla works around to provide. "if you wish to
>use mozilla, use NT or Linux" is a meagre response, imho.
I agree with you on this one. It seems slightly hypocritical
and/or confused to me that the Mozill
The feature being requested is not a security measure, it is security
snake oil. This is precisely the sort of misfeature that, when broken,
causes a lot of bad press for a product.
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
> The feature being requested is not a security measure, it is security
> snake oil. This is precisely the sort of misfeature that, when broken,
> causes a lot of bad press for a product.
Then what do you call password protecting your list of passwords to
various Web sites, or password protec
> > The feature being requested is not a security measure, it is security
> > snake oil. This is precisely the sort of misfeature that, when broken,
> > causes a lot of bad press for a product.
>
>Then what do you call password protecting your list of passwords to
> various Web sites, or pas
> >Then what do you call password protecting your list of passwords to
> > various Web sites, or password protecting your list of auto-fill
> > forms?
> You need to acquaint yourself with what is being requested. The password
> list and auto-fill password protection is implementing using s
> Isn't have SOME security (even if it's not all that serious) better
> than having NO security?
No, not when somebody "discovers" the "terrible security flaw" and spews
it all over the front page of the Times or Journal, and calls you
incompetent.
Call me bitter, but if I can't provide full se
; profile on his desktop?
>
>
The 'nosey' could still fire up someone elses profile. Nope. Password
protected profiles as in N4.5-4.7. Homes (and small business) all over
america use this feature. We're not asking for Fort Knox here, so don't
get excited. We just want what so many are using from N4.5-4.7.
We will except no substitutes!
bl
Pål Are Nordal wrote:
> ravi narayan wrote:
>
>>and i think its silly to call it stupid. it may not be worth the
>>time of the mozilla development team, but a good argument can be
>>made for the validity of the request. such protection as requested
>>in the bug might indeed be an OS function, b
Gervase Markham wrote:
>>>Are you volunteering to tell us all what to do? :-)
>>>
>>If you'll listen ;)
>>
>
> No. Will you now stop telling us all what to do? :-)
NO, that is my job as a bug reporter ;)
>
>
>>>There is a difference between the sort of security which keeps users from
>>>s
> >>>There is a difference between the sort of security which keeps users from
> >>>snooping on one anothers' files (which has to be implemented at OS level,
> >>>or it won't work) and internal application security.
> >>>
> >>So why does the PSM prevent others from reading my NEW mail, but they
>
Gervase Markham wrote:
>There is a difference between the sort of security which keeps users from
>snooping on one anothers' files (which has to be implemented at OS level,
>or it won't work) and internal application security.
>
>
So why does the PSM prevent others from r
Almost every objection to
password protected profiles I've read all fall back to the argument in
position 1. above - that it should be the responsibility of the OS.
But that's obviously false because, if that were valid reasoning, then
PSM should be thrown out also - and that's not go
Jason Bassford wrote:
>1. Have no security in Netscape at all and "let the OS deal with it".
>By that reasoning, abandon PSM altogether.
>
[...]
>argument in
>position 1. above - that it should be the responsibility of the OS.
>But that's obviously false because, if that were valid reasoning,
> That's complete nonsense. PSM's primary function is SSL (https etc.) and
> S/MIME. Password encryption is only a minor function that were added
> only recently. (Does 4.x even have it?)
Then - why was password encryption added? Again, the argument
doesn't work. It makes no sense to argue
Jason Bassford wrote:
>
>>WHich is as easy as:
>>Windows: Start->[something]->Search->Text->"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>
>No "ordinary" person would have any idea how to do the above. Most
> "ordinary" people know just enough to turn the computer on and click
> on an icon for an application that
Garth Wallace wrote:
>
> Jason Bassford wrote:
>
> >
> >>WHich is as easy as:
> >>Windows: Start->[something]->Search->Text->"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> >
> >No "ordinary" person would have any idea how to do the above. Most
> > "ordinary" people know just enough to turn the computer on and click
> Good grief! If you know how to use Windows Search, you're considered a
> "power user"? I can customize my start menu, does that make me a 1337 h4x0r?
It's sad, but true. I've had to support thousands of "end
users" at various companies during my career, as well as friends and
family, and t
ely personal level I agree with you. I already
have icons set up on individual users desktops in my house with "-P"
switches to run their profile. Should password protected profiles be
implemented in Mozilla, I wouldn't actually use them. (There are much
better ways of implementing
Jason Bassford wrote:
>However. I still argue for having them in place because I can
> easily imagine situations where it COULD help somebody with what they
> want. Just because *I* wouldn't use the feature is, AFAIK, not a very
> good reason to say that it shouldn't be made part of the p
On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 14:09:51 +0100, nospam@nospam wrote:
>When my wife comes into the room and takes over the browser and wants
>her own settings I have to lose my login sesion in the OS so she can
>switch browser profiles, bit of an overkill dont you think?
You should try Windows XP. One of i
Jason Bassford wrote:
>Isn't have SOME security (even if it's not all that serious) better
> than having NO security? Again, I'm not sure why there's an argument
> against this on a theoretical level.
No SOME security is WORSE than NO security? Why? Because most users do
not understand
>Yes, but there is no such thing as 100% "full security". There's
> always some method of breaking into every security system in
> existence. Again, it's all a matter of degrees.
There isn't 100% full security, but there is as secure as we know how to
make it. (Basically it secure enough
"User Profiles should be able to be protected with passwords."
If you agree with the above statement, please vote for this BUG to be
fixed here:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
Even better, if you have the knowledge (unfortunately, I can't program)
and interest, maybe you coul
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here are my arguments for this important feature:
>===
> there is no absolute need to encrypt the actual files in the
>profile's directory.
>That would be overkill. All we need is to be able to
see Stuart Ballard's excellent argument on this in the general newsgroup in the
thread:
"Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! You knowyouwant this feature!"
Ian Davey wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
"User Profiles should be able to be protected with passwords."
If you agree with the above statement, please vote for this BUG to be
fixed here:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
Even better, if you have the knowledge (unfortunately, I can't program)
and interest, maybe you coul
I'm inclined to agree with Ian. We try to steer clear of features which
provide a false sense of security. Also, this statement makes no sense
to me:
Peter Lairo wrote:
> Those who are willing to read through hundreds of pages of difficult to
> read
> text files to read our mail will likely n
Let's keep thing simple when possible. All most people need is a way to keep
nosy teenage sisters from reading their brother's email and visa-versa. The VAST
majority of PC users don't even know what a directory tree is. We've long passed
the era when only computer geeks used computers.
Mitchell
Totally agree. All I'm looking for is a way to keep my kids out of my
well organized(!) bookmarks, not to be reading my email (accidently or
otherwise) and to maintain my own setup/page display/Sidebar when I get
to use the home computer. If your going to have profiles/profile
management at
Peter Lairo wrote:
> Let's keep thing simple when possible. All most people need is a way to keep
> nosy teenage sisters from reading their brother's email and visa-versa. The VAST
> majority of PC users don't even know what a directory tree is. We've long passed
> the era when only computer geek
Ben Bucksch wrote:
> Peter Lairo wrote:
>
> > Let's keep thing simple when possible. All most people need is a way to keep
> > nosy teenage sisters from reading their brother's email and visa-versa. The VAST
> > majority of PC users don't even know what a directory tree is. We've long passed
> >
Peter Lairo wrote:
> Ben Bucksch wrote:
>
>> I think, many of those "brothers" are able to get beyond such a simple
>> "security" protection.
>
> You're wrong. You obviously have little contact with "regular" people.
Got me. I was born that smart, so I never went to school.
> win2k
> is too e
Peter, please remember that Mozilla is open-source. You probably won't
get Netscape to add this feature, but there's nothing stopping you from
writing it yourself or finding a competent hacker to write it for you.
If you or your hacker have specific questions about how to go about
doing this,
Peter Lairo wrote:
> "User Profiles should be able to be protected with passwords."
>
> If you agree with the above statement, please vote for this BUG to be
> fixed here:
>
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
Where do I vote for this bug getting WONTFIX? :-)
Ben Bucksch wrote:
> Peter Lairo wrote:
>
>> "User Profiles should be able to be protected with passwords."
>>
>> If you agree with the above statement, please vote for this BUG to be
>> fixed here:
>>
>> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
>
>
> Where do I vote for this bug get
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Bucksch)
wrote:
>Peter Lairo wrote:
>
>> "User Profiles should be able to be protected with passwords."
>>
>> If you agree with the above statement, please vote for this BUG to be
>> fixed here:
>>
>> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?
I just vote for it.
Think of the following situation:
In a family, every member wants to use Mozilla's, mail facilities
- Father gets confidential information from clients
- Daughter gets love letters by her friend
- Mother
enz.
And of course they don't want anybody to read their e-mail, so
Martijn Kluijtmans wrote:
> I just vote for it.
> Think of the following situation:
> In a family, every member wants to use Mozilla's, mail facilities
> - Father gets confidential information from clients
> - Daughter gets love letters by her friend
> - Mother
> enz.
Yes, we had this disc
Martijn Kluijtmans wrote:
> And of course they don't want anybody to read their e-mail
Seems to me that when encryption is turned on in password prefs, a
password is required before you can access mail. Or doesn't it work like
this any more?
All the messages in this thread make one thing clear: (1) the
programmers are mostly against it. (2) The user are mostly for it.
It is therefore very clear that the programmers NEED client (users)
oriented project managers that will TELL them what to program.
Unfortunately, this discussion has
> All the messages in this thread make one thing clear: (1) the
> programmers are mostly against it. (2) The user are mostly for it.
1) is because when it becomes apparent that it's a terribly-insecure hacky
feature, it's the programmers who take the flak.
You can't conclude 2), because users w
Gervase Markham wrote:
>>All the messages in this thread make one thing clear: (1) the
>>programmers are mostly against it. (2) The user are mostly for it.
>>
>
> 1) is because when it becomes apparent that it's a terribly-insecure hacky
> feature, it's the programmers who take the flak.
see m
46 matches
Mail list logo
