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
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
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
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
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
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*??
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:
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
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
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
Bernard Mercier wrote:
I have discussion in the puppy linux forum about SM security.
You use *Puppy* and you're worried about *security*??
11 matches
Mail list logo