Re: Critique of CyberInsecurity report

2003-09-27 Thread Sunder
Yup, and also don't forget all the security holes in IE that would allow even more enjoyable fun stuff... things that are(were?) exploited by scumware sites such as Xupiter that installed themselves into IE and allowed pop-up ads from hell. [Sorry about the previous message, had lots of typos in

Re: Critique of CyberInsecurity report

2003-09-27 Thread James A. Donald
-- On 26 Sep 2003 at 17:30, Sunder wrote: Ever seen WebX? - it's like PCAnywhere, or VNC or TimbukTu, only it works over the web. A user just goes to a web page, and a user at the other end can take over their machine because IE allows such software to run! Ok, at least WebX is a

RE: Critique of CyberInsecurity report

2003-09-26 Thread Vincent Penquerc'h
Wow, the problem is solved, right? Wrong. With the number of systems on the net growing rapidly, any realistic extrapolation leaves the number of Windows systems as being even larger than today. Hence we face at least as much exposure as at present, which the evidence has shown is more

Re: Critique of CyberInsecurity report

2003-09-26 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 12:47:38AM +0200, futureworlds wrote: Overall, this is a terrible analysis with a misguided solution which, if adopted, would only make things worse. It is shocking to see the Please describe, how exactly it would be worse. We're kinda curious. well known figures who

Re: Critique of CyberInsecurity report

2003-09-26 Thread Sunder
Look, the answers are excruciatingly simple: 1. your email should not execute. 2. your web browser should not be able to run script that can access anything other than contect that came from that server - or in the least that domain -- especially not your hard drive. Things like ActiveX are a