On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:52:26PM -0500, Duquette, John wrote:
That is a terrible policy to follow. If the vulnerability is real enough
for the vendor to publish a patch, then sysadmins should patch their
systems. Haven't all the recent worms taught people anything?
The problem is that many
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 04:56:48PM +0200, Kim Oppalfens wrote:
Or maybe it is a conspiracy to make us patch our systems once instead of 14
times. By doing so we would have more free time which probably increases
xbox sales.
But how could an XBox ever compare to the fun of 'install patch,
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 02:09:02PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Save the Attachement first, the Virusscanner scanns on access.
You don't open it, but if it has an virus the scanner will trigger.
I do it like this!
Of course, this isn't foolproof unless you have a scanner which can
reliably
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 10:37:58AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://218.62.43.30/verify.html
Signed up for paypal 2 weeks ago, and then this came in the mail as a link
in a paypal looking html email asking me to confirm by entering my credit
card/account info.
As PayPal states
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 04:45:57PM -0500, Lachniet, Mark wrote:
Of course on the down side, you'd have to use your email server, with
legit MX record as your smart host for all users (may be a hassle for
home offices and POP clients, maybe requiring outgoing SMTP auth, but
that's easy right?)
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 02:18:34PM +1300, Steve Wray wrote:
Most of the nice, friendly, easy to use package management
systems (rpm and apt for two) usually run the daemon
in its default configuration, immediately its installed.
And if they don't actually run them at install time, they
set
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 10:16:43AM -0500, Pamela Patterson wrote:
OK,you tell me who this was bcc'ed to, and I'll believe you. I can't
get the bcc to show in the headers even if I sit at the command line of
the mail server and type mail foo -b bar when both foo and bar are
local addresses. I
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 08:29:49AM -0500, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
Oh, give me a break. Some developer went, Oh, hey, I'm not bounds
checking there. Okay, fix that, and the changes filtered out into
the release of IE. You don't release security patches except in
response to publication of a
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 07:28:18PM +0100, Stefan Esser wrote:
a) people write passwords into their URLs (valid point)
(but if they cannot write it into URLs they will store it into
IE password remembering function or attach some notes to their
monitor, so removing this feature has
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 09:20:24PM +0100, Thomas Zangl - Mobil wrote:
The benefit (in my opinion) would be greater, in my enviroment, then the
loss of freedom individual users will suffer. In case of static IP´s ISPs might
be able to offer exceptions.
IMO, you've just named the distinction on
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:33:10PM +0530, Akash Mahajan wrote:
If someone executes an infected pif/scr file using wine in linux, will
the pc get infected?
I would expect the wine subsystem to be infectable (provided that the
malware in question is wine-compatible - not all win32 software runs
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:12:46PM -0500, Mary Landesman wrote:
On January 20, 2004 11:55 AM, Tobias Weisserth claimed:
And the blame goes on MS for this. Nobody else.
There is absolutely nothing I can do to secure my home from break-in. I can
minimize the risks, but I cannot alleviate the
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 10:36:41AM -0800, Jim Race wrote:
Check that. With Moz 1.5:
Opening in a new *TAB* takes one to MS. Clicking the link takes one to
/. with http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ in the address bar.
That's odd.
Not all that odd. Take a look at the source for that link:
a
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 12:06:56AM -0800, Tri Huynh wrote:
Yahoo Instant Messenger YAUTO.DLL buffer overflow
=
PROGRAM: Yahoo Instant Messenger (YIM)
HOMEPAGE: http://messenger.yahoo.com
VULNERABLE VERSIONS: 5.6.0.1347 and below
I have
14 matches
Mail list logo
