The reason you'll find XP Pro on more laptops in a retail
enviroment is they are more likely aimed towards business users
where as desktop systems are geared for home users with a bunch
of mulitmedia crap on them. Look at Toshiba Tecra laptops,
mostly XP Pro. Toshiba Satellite on the other hand is
This is good advice O. I typically recommend non-savvy
users to get a hw firewall/router immediately if they
have a broadband connection.
FWIW, AV, FW and patching make up the core of what MS
calls 'Protect your PC' (their overall strategy for
security guidance for end/home users). They've been
r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In XP, when you add users during the install they're all administrators.
I believe this is with the Home Edition only, but I may be wrong. Home
basically ignores the normal user/administrator distinction. Fortunately,
Home's a lot less common, even in the home.
I re
XP Home and Pro both give any users entered during setup Admin
access.
"Any user not running FW or AV" is overrated. A router does a
fine job of providing one with a hardware firewall (although as
hackable as any other firewall), and you could get by without AV
software if you know exactly what y
>> I believe this is with the Home Edition only, but I may be wrong. Home
>> basically ignores the normal user/administrator distinction.
>> Fortunately,
>> Home's a lot less common, even in the home.
>
> What metrics were used to come to this last conclusion?
Just from experience and word on the
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Eugene Unix and Gnu/Linux User Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Eug-lug] Stupid Security Story of today
> > In XP, when you add users during the install they&
> In XP, when you add users during the install they're all administrators.
I believe this is with the Home Edition only, but I may be wrong. Home
basically ignores the normal user/administrator distinction. Fortunately,
Home's a lot less common, even in the home.
In our version of XP (Professiona
> and people deride OpenBSD because they claim that there are no holes
> in a default install ... to a degree because hardly anything is enabled
> by default.
And that's a good thing, Jake ;)
I can't count the numbers of times I've helped some poor soul that's been
rooted:
"Ah they got in via po
> There is no need for /ad hominem/ personal assaults on this or any other
> forum. This is totally out of line, and it is not the first time you've
> tried to pick a fight with me.
Actually, if I remember, that "infamous" assault was began by an
out-of-line post you made, kind of like the one y
On Friday 05 November 2004 9:24 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You do not know what you're talking about, and while you may look
> legitimate on a list full of UNIX users who don't pay attention to
> Windows, you look like a fool to anyone in the know.
There is no need for /ad hominem/ personal a
> On Thursday 04 November 2004 12:29 pm, perdurabo wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:39:35 -0800, Russ Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > One of the fundamental flaws with Windows is that most of the time,
>> any
>> > user logged on has administrator privileges.
>>
>> That's not a flaw in Wi
On Thursday 04 November 2004 3:39 pm, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 01:18:29PM -0800, Ken Barber wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 November 2004 12:29 pm, perdurabo wrote:
> > > On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:39:35 -0800, Russ Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > > One of the fundamental flaws
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 01:18:29PM -0800, Ken Barber wrote:
> On Thursday 04 November 2004 12:29 pm, perdurabo wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:39:35 -0800, Russ Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > One of the fundamental flaws with Windows is that most of the time, any
> > > user logged on ha
Jason wrote:
With XP, 2K, 2K3, etc. though, the recommendations of
user/admin are pretty much the same as with Unix,
Linux, etc.
That may be the "recommended" way, but it's not how the installer sets
things up.
In XP, when you add users during the install they're all administrators.
Russ
Some notes . . .
--- perdurabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's not a flaw in Windows. That's a flaw in the
> system
> administrator, or in many applications vendors who
> still program in
> "Windows 95 One User For All" mode that require
> users to be
> administrators
Yeah, unfortunately users
On Thursday 04 November 2004 12:29 pm, perdurabo wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:39:35 -0800, Russ Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One of the fundamental flaws with Windows is that most of the time, any
> > user logged on has administrator privileges.
>
> That's not a flaw in Windows. That's
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:39:35 -0800, Russ Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> larry price wrote:
>
> >OK, linux, unix, BeOS, anything must be better than a system that allows this:
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/04/phishing_exploit/
> >
> >I mean, rewriting the hosts file from a browser e
Has anyone tried the exploit using a "Limited Account" under XP
though? "Limited Accounts" can't do alot of stuff. Changing
hosts files is nothing new though. It's just the first noted
time of occuring from a browser exploit that I'm aware of.
--- Russ Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One
larry price wrote:
OK, linux, unix, BeOS, anything must be better than a system that allows this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/04/phishing_exploit/
I mean, rewriting the hosts file from a browser exploit...?
Shouldn't you a least need elevated privileges
to access functionality that could
OK, linux, unix, BeOS, anything must be better than a system that allows this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/04/phishing_exploit/
I mean, rewriting the hosts file from a browser exploit...?
Shouldn't you a least need elevated privileges
to access functionality that could bury you in the ma
20 matches
Mail list logo
