Re: Testing security of SM 1.x and 2.x

2010-04-03 Thread Bernard Mercier
Dennis McCunney a exprimé avec précision : On 4/2/2010 4:30 PM, * JeffM: Paul wrote: I also don't see why every one is so worried about viruses, zombies, etc. When you use an OS that has you always running as root (e.g. the standard version of Puppy), drive-by infections and the ability of

Re: Testing security of SM 1.x and 2.x

2010-04-02 Thread Bernard Mercier
Paul a émis l'idée suivante : Bernard Mercier wrote: Dans son message précédent, Paul a écrit : Bernard Mercier wrote: I have discussion in the puppy linux forum about SM security. A forum member claims that the developers say: *even the devs are saying it is not secure

Re: Testing security of SM 1.x and 2.x

2010-04-02 Thread JeffM
Paul wrote: I also don't see why every one is so worried about viruses, zombies, etc. When you use an OS that has you always running as root (e.g. the standard version of Puppy), drive-by infections and the ability of any user to bork the OS are constant worries. The logical solution is to get

Re: Testing security of SM 1.x and 2.x

2010-04-02 Thread Dennis McCunney
On 4/2/2010 4:30 PM, * JeffM: Paul wrote: I also don't see why every one is so worried about viruses, zombies, etc. When you use an OS that has you always running as root (e.g. the standard version of Puppy), drive-by infections and the ability of any user to bork the OS are constant

Re: Testing security of SM 1.x and 2.x

2010-04-01 Thread Bernard Mercier
Robert Kaiser a formulé ce donderdag : Bernard Mercier wrote: Would you have another link to site which test browsers? I don't think there can be any site that reliably tests browser security. Only long-going deep-level investigation and comparison of what vulnerabilities are reported

Re: Testing security of SM 1.x and 2.x

2010-04-01 Thread Bernard Mercier
JeffM avait énoncé : Bernard Mercier wrote: I have discussion in the puppy linux forum about SM security. You use *Puppy* and you're worried about *security*??

Re: Testing security of SM 1.x and 2.x

2010-04-01 Thread Bernard Mercier
Dans son message précédent, Paul a écrit : Bernard Mercier wrote: I have discussion in the puppy linux forum about SM security. A forum member claims that the developers say: *even the devs are saying it is not secure enough.* I did a test with this link:

Re: Testing security of SM 1.x and 2.x

2010-04-01 Thread Paul
Bernard Mercier wrote: Dans son message précédent, Paul a écrit : Bernard Mercier wrote: I have discussion in the puppy linux forum about SM security. A forum member claims that the developers say: *even the devs are saying it is not secure enough.* I did a test with

Testing security of SM 1.x and 2.x

2010-03-31 Thread Bernard Mercier
I have discussion in the puppy linux forum about SM security. A forum member claims that the developers say: *even the devs are saying it is not secure enough.* I did a test with this link: http://bcheck.scanit.be/bcheck/ on my SM 2.0.. SM 2.0.3 passed all tests ok. Is

Re: Testing security of SM 1.x and 2.x

2010-03-31 Thread Bernard Mercier
Bernard Mercier a écrit : I have discussion in the puppy linux forum about SM security. A forum member claims that the developers say: *even the devs are saying it is not secure enough.* I did a test with this link: http://bcheck.scanit.be/bcheck/ on my SM 2.0.. SM

Re: Testing security of SM 1.x and 2.x

2010-03-31 Thread JeffM
Bernard Mercier wrote: I have discussion in the puppy linux forum about SM security. You use *Puppy* and you're worried about *security*??