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, s
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
> Microso
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 t
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 ev
> 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$'s
> site? To sit and scream about web design decisions in this mai
> I agree with Nick. It is ironic and unfortunate that MS would force
> users to turn on a potentially unsafe scripting language to read a
> security bulletin.
>
the default secure lockdown includes stopping and blocking all the scripts from
executing so i think this is a paradox
Kim Scarborough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been playing around with custom stylesheets but I can't seem to
> find a way to override that.
That's a good idea. It works with the following line:
div { display:block !important; }
The !important statement is necessary in order to overwrite
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Troy wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:09:21 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Your points are well taken and understandable. But if you are supporting
> > a M$ operating system enough to need to read the SB's, then wouldnt your
> > IE be up to date to read them? Eve
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
