Nick,
As much as I agree with you that this is someting of a blunder by
Microsoft's web design people and that it does give out an impression of a
bad attitude towards security rather than being a huge risk per-se (not
saying that there is no risk involved). In fact I agree with more or less
all
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:55:39 -0800, Walter Wart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick, your points are well taken. Everyone of them makes sense. And you
will never get disagreement from me (or most people here) for a spot of
Microsoft abuse. But you might want to address your comments to
Microsoft
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:35:28 PST, Troy [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I've sent comments regarding this to Microsoft via the comments link
at the bottom of the security bulletin. I don't know if it will do any
good, though. I did get a generic-sounding we're looking into this
email back, so that
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:09:21 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
seems a little childish. And if one was to argue that Aanyone needs to
read these articles not just people that support M$ OS's, well to
that...most people that have a M$ OS as an end user have auto update
turned on and dont even
Kim Scarborough [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been playing around with custom stylesheets but I can't seem to
find a way to override that.
That's a good idea. It works with the following line:
div { display:block !important; }
The !important statement is necessary in order to overwrite the
I agree with Nick. It is ironic and unfortunate that MS would force
users to turn on a potentially unsafe scripting language to read a
security bulletin.
the default secure lockdown includes stopping and blocking all the scripts from
executing so i think this is a paradox
Your points are well taken and understandable. But if you are supporting
a M$ operating system enough to need to read the SB's, then wouldnt your
IE be up to date to read them? Even if you would just use IE to
read M$'s
site? To sit and scream about web design decisions in this mailing
Even worse ! Convinced we could out-wit Nick FitzGerald ;-) we
see with glee tucked away at the bottom of the page:
View a printer-friendly version of this page
PRESTO ! Away we go.
Only to find that 3 colorful pages later, our trusty printer
churns pictures of the
[x]technical details
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:09:21 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your points are well taken and understandable. But if you are supporting
a M$ operating system enough to need to read the SB's, then wouldnt your
IE be up to date to read them? Even if you would just use IE to read M$'s
site?
They think we are morons too!!
Just in case you don't know how to read and have somehow found yourself
working on security with MS products, you can listen to a CISSP (they
are trained and certified readers) read the security bulletins to you as
well as promote whatever crap they feel like
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Troy wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:09:21 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your points are well taken and understandable. But if you are supporting
a M$ operating system enough to need to read the SB's, then wouldnt your
IE be up to date to read them? Even if
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 05:57, Nick FitzGerald wrote:
Try to read Microsoft's latest security epistles:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms04-009.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms04-010.mspx
with a browser that does not have JavaScript
MS is not alone. More and more web sites don't work without scripting
and/or cookies. I guess cookies are a lesser evil. I'm constantly faced
with the decision whether or not a particular content means enough to me
that I'll turn on the script. In fact, I now run two browsers, Mozilla with
Your points are well taken and understandable. But if you are supporting
a M$ operating system enough to need to read the SB's, then wouldnt your
IE be up to date to read them? Even if you would just use IE to read M$'s
site? To sit and scream about web design decisions in this mailing group
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to me:
Nothing personal against Jim in particular here -- I've received a
couple of direct Email responses that suggest a few others may also
have had trouble grasping the _irony_ I was pointing out...
That dealt with, I'll now address the peripheral security issues Jim
15 matches
Mail list logo
