intervention by any means, but the parallels are striking.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
What limit should they have put? $2
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Ed Crowley wrote:
> What limit should they have put? $2,100? $20,000? So easy for you to
> make this call with 20-20 hindsight.
Of course, Ford knew about the problem *ahead* of time, and still did
*nothing* to correct it. "Let 'em burn" was their attitude. Which is ki
edure. :-)
Kuminda Chandimith
Sr. Technical Consultant
Ducont.com FZ-LLC
Tel: + 971-4-3913000 Ext 237
Fax: +971-4-3913001
http://www.ducont.com
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 November 2001 23:57
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: It
;)
>
>
>
> Martin Tuip
> Exchange 2000 Listowner
> www.exchange-mail.org
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 9:25 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: R
EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 9:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
What limit should they have put? $2,100? $20,000? So easy for you to
make this call with 20-20 hindsigh
D]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 8:52 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
Yeah, but is a 28MPH impact "hard enough"?
Ford's & Lee Iacocca's $2000 limit for the Pinto
nnot drive out hate; only love can do
that. -- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:52 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
Yeah, but is
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:29 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
Everyone I've known who owned a Ford Pinto liked their car. Remember, the
Pinto was a two-thousand-dollar car. Every car, even a Mer
lutions to behavioral problems."
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Benjamin Scott
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 10:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Chris Sch
Significant difference between your doors unlocking by themselves and
someone breaking into your car. No one ever said that vulnerabilities don't
exist.
-Original Message-
From: Black, Nathan
To: Exchange Discussions
Sent: 11/12/01 3:02 PM
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft'
alf Of Black, Nathan
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 3:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
Which is scarier, thinking you are safe or knowing you are not?
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/bull
etin/ms01
vember 12, 2001 2:49 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
>
>
> Hmmm... funny... last time I checked, neither NT nor W2k artbitrarily
> changes permissions. But maybe that's just because I didn't
> get
Hmmm... funny... last time I checked, neither NT nor W2k artbitrarily
changes permissions. But maybe that's just because I didn't get infected
with Nimda.
-Original Message-
From: Black, Nathan
To: Exchange Discussions
Sent: 11/12/01 1:46 PM
Subject: RE: It's not Mi
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Mike Carlson wrote:
> For a developer having to write 600 lines of code to make sure
> everything is set r
Nice. I think that wraps up the point of this thread. :)
> -Original Message-
> From: Drewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:52 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
>
>
&
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Mike Carlson wrote:
> For a developer having to write 600 lines of code to make sure
> everything is set right before launching the form would be an enormous
> amount of work compared to editing a key to allow .exe files to show up.
> Granted that may be the more secure way of
al Message-
From: Black, Nathan
Sent: Mon 11/12/2001 1:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
> Nimda required the IUSR_ account to have read
t: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:22 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
>
>
> Outlook 2002 ships in a much more secure mode than its
> predecessors.[1]
> Other than getting people to agree to the obvious; that there w
rld that yields most painfully to change." - Robert Kennedy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Black, Nathan
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
&
I think that would be more accurate as "What do you mean my doors won't stay
locked after I've locked them?"
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Mynhier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:13 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
>
promiscuous-by-default design of the NTFS file system.
Nathan
> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:23 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: It&#
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Stephen Mynhier [...message deleted...]
I make a private reply, and you repost it to a public list, and *I* get
accused of trolling?
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not |
| necessarily represent the
um for
getting those concerns to Microsoft.
[2] alt.microsoft.advocacy or alt.microsoft.die.satan.die perhaps.
> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 12:01 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE:
One's ability to start a car in no way reflects one's ability to drive it.
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Scott
To: Stephen Mynhier
Sent: 11/12/01 1:11 PM
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Stephen Mynhier wrot
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Mynhier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 2:13 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
>
>
> Yeah, it's not like Nimda didn't exploit a vu
thing.
:-)
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Scott
Sent: Mon 11/12/2001 12:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
On Mon, 1
Bottom line is that it's not MS's fault that so many admins are lazy and so
many lusers are stupid!
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Scott
To: Exchange Discussions
Sent: 11/12/01 12:00 PM
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
Thankfully, after
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Chris Scharff wrote:
>> Why should *I* have to clean up after *Microsoft's*
>> mistakes? I paid good money for their software; it is
>> unreasonable to expect it to be secure in the default configuration?
>
> You're just being a troll like Shawn now right? If you're not goin
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Black, Nathan wrote:
> JavaScript is Microsoft's concoction of what they felt Java should be
> like.
(Totally off-topic at this point, but what the heck... :)
JavaScript (now (being?) standardized as ECMAScript) was originally called
"LiveScript", and was developed by Ne
y, November 12, 2001 10:44 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
>
>
> Netscape's invention, actually.
>
> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/javascript/2001/04/06/js_history.html
>
> Phil
>
>
November 12, 2001 10:16 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
>
>
> This is all pretty irrelevant to the initial post isn't it?
> Yes, Microsoft
> has some serious security issues.[1] I'm sure Nathan agrees tha
L PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 12 November 2001 16:18
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
>
>
> JavaScript is Microsoft's concoction of what they felt Java
> should be like.
> Pure Java uses a Sun Java approved runtime (li
and should have
died. *sigh*
[1] Preaching to the choir gets a tad old.
> -Original Message-
> From: Black, Nathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 10:18 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault becau
essage-
> From: Benjamin Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 10:26 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Mike Carlson wrote:
> >>> I have no idea w
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
> "If architects built buildings the way programmers write programs, the
>first woodpecker to come along would have destroyed civilization."
> -- I
> > So, you're not aware of the fact that with about 30 seconds
> worth of
> > work (literally), you could write a script that would alleviate all
> > these scripting vulnerabilities on all your machines?
>
> Why should *I* have to clean up after *Microsoft's*
> mistakes? I paid good money
> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 8:26 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
>
>
> The issue is not scripting per se, but the fact th
> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 7:26 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Roger Seielstad wrote:
>
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Roger Seielstad wrote:
> Most customers who have used MS OSs since the DOS days, not to mention
> those exposed to *nix, like the ability to script just about any change
> to the OS ...
The issue is not scripting per se, but the fact that MS Outlook and MSIE
have a long his
Original Message-
From: Benjamin Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 November 2001 04:26
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Mike Carlson wrote:
>>> I have no idea what you're talking about. Seems to me
> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 10:08 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Chris Scharff wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Shawn Connelly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 7:36 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: It's not Microsoft's fault because
>
>
> Who are these customers that demanded such code features that
> could create
> destructive
> "If architects built buildings the way programmers write programs, the
>first woodpecker to come along would have destroyed civilization."
> -- I forget who
Actually, if you remember the events of 9-11, you can clearly see that even
the noble architect doe
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Mike Carlson wrote:
>>> I have no idea what you're talking about. Seems to me that every
>>> useful scripting language is potentially dangerous.
>>
>> True. However, most scripting languages don't
>> automatically execute when emailed to you... :-)
>
> JavaScript will in HT
44 matches
Mail list logo
