On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 22:14 +, alan c wrote:
I trust it will not be long before I can feel just a little safer?
comments welcomed.
Personally, I would say that this is a very long article stating that
social engineering is platform independent. Anybody can stick a bash
Fantastic little article. I guess we are never going to be able to
fully protect against stupidity but there definitely is room for bug
fixes in this case.
--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Michael Holloway wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 22:14 +, alan c wrote:
I trust it will not be long before I can feel just a little safer?
comments welcomed.
Personally, I would say that this is a very long article stating that
social engineering is platform independent. Anybody can
Chris Bagley wrote:
Fantastic little article. I guess we are never going to be able to
fully protect against stupidity but there definitely is room for bug
fixes in this case.
Thunar seem to have got it right
--
alan cocks
Ubuntu user #10391
Linux user #360648
--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Michael Holloway
mich...@thedarkwinter.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 22:14 +, alan c wrote:
I trust it will not be long before I can feel just a little safer?
comments welcomed.
I think something like distro level security could be implemented,
where
I hope it is /not/ MD5, which has been 'cracked' for a while now ;)
http://www.mscs.dal.ca/~selinger/md5collision/
In principle however, your idea would work well in practice. It's even
quite possible to do today.
I would like to see SELinux/AppArmour taken that little bit further
too.
In the open and sharing spirit of FOSS I offer a heads up to a well
written item which looks like it needs some actions in response.
There may be some nice debate about a definition here or there, but
the real world is in this article as far as I can see.
I trust it will not be long before I
