Duane writes:
Chances are, unless he was sending credit card details over a wifi
network it was unlikely it was intercepted, more likely either his
computer had a trojan or the company he was dealing with had their
database broken into, and from memory inside jobs are still more common
then
On Saturday 14 May 2005 13:03, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Jaqui Greenlees writes:
any extention to a browser should by default be marked as insecure.
or the developers of the browser could be held liable for damages for
not marking it as such.
( flash included )
I agree. And they
Ian G wrote:
On Saturday 14 May 2005 13:03, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Jaqui Greenlees writes:
any extention to a browser should by default be marked as insecure.
or the developers of the browser could be held liable for damages for
not marking it as such.
( flash included )
I agree. And they
Ian G writes:
By way of comparison, in the same time frame,
my company chose Java for desktop clients for
security reasons, and even though our result is
much more secure and robust, we can't get people
to install Java without violence or blackmail, so
much so that Java on the desktop is
Jaqui Greenlees writes:
I have to write up the results, but a brief summary of a survey I did:
( 250,000+ people given survey )
80% leave sites as soon as they see flash
I certainly do. Here in France, Flash is a plague; a majority of
commercial sites seem to use it extensively, and often
Fabrizio Marana wrote:
1.0.4 is the proof I needed to escalate this again.
[...]
So again: per site java plug-ins/applets control would make FireFox more
secure...
There is *no* connexion between the very serious problems that were
fixed in 1.0.4 and java/applet.
Honestly I was tempted to stop
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Jaqui Greenlees writes:
I have to write up the results, but a brief summary of a survey I did:
( 250,000+ people given survey )
80% leave sites as soon as they see flash
I certainly do. Here in France, Flash is a plague; a majority of
commercial sites seem to use it
