Please help us with a fraud situation

Please help us with a fraud situation
Secure Home | Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 Networking Firewalls    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
Please help us with a fraud situation irfansmith 05-27-2008
Posted by Newbie72 on May 31, 2008, 10:42 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

> Firefox, unlike IE, has no inherent, design-based and unavoidable security
> issues. So far all security issues were due to *random* programming errors.

I know Microsoft has turned out some crap over the years. Do you
really think they are deliberately turning out crap. I dont think so.
If that was true then they would have never achieved the status they
are today. Do you agree that all exploits found are due to *random*
programming errors. I mean who really makes a vulnerable product on
purpose these days. I cant think of any CEO that wakes up in the
morning and says lets go design a pile of crap today so we can be in
the news more than TJX.... This does not mean that I like Microsoft
products any more or less than I like Linux. It is just applying a
little logical thinking. Most companies want to make money so the
executives get rich. You dont do that by deliberatly putting bugs in
your software....

I like the idea of the SSID as being "private_XYV"


I believe Netstumbler still shows channels even without the SSID being
displayed.

Posted by Sebastian G. on May 31, 2008, 1:27 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Newbie72 wrote:

>> Firefox, unlike IE, has no inherent, design-based and unavoidable security
>> issues. So far all security issues were due to *random* programming errors.
>
> I know Microsoft has turned out some crap over the years. Do you
> really think they are deliberately turning out crap. I dont think so.


I didn't claim that they're turning out crap. IE is perfectly suited for its
intended usage scenario: as an ActiveX Rich Platform Client.

> If that was true then they would have never achieved the status they
> are today. Do you agree that all exploits found are due to *random*
> programming errors.


No. With IE, you can break security by simply working through the front
door, using well-documented mechanisms in their exact functionality. It was
never supposed to be secure in first place.

Posted by Volker Birk on June 1, 2008, 7:06 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>> Firefox, unlike IE, has no inherent, design-based and unavoidable security
>> issues. So far all security issues were due to *random* programming errors.
> really think they are deliberately turning out crap. I dont think so.
> If that was true then they would have never achieved the status they
> are today. Do you agree that all exploits found are due to *random*
> programming errors.

Unfortunately not.

ActiveX is one single design flaw as it is.

Yours,
VB.
--
The file name of an indirect node file is the string "iNode" immediately
followed by the link reference converted to decimal text, with no leading
zeroes. For example, an indirect node file with link reference 123 would
have the name "iNode123". - HFS Plus Volume Format, MacOS X

Posted by Chris Davies on May 30, 2008, 6:15 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>> 4 Hide Your SSID

> Achieves nothing.

Actually, it achieves frustration on the part of OTHER people trying to
ensure their devices don't tramp on the channel(s) you are using.

Like Sebastian implies, don't hide your SSID. But do give it a label that
doesn't obviously tie it to you. Something like "apeoi4nfmcx" could work.

Chris

Posted by Sebastian G. on May 30, 2008, 7:42 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Chris Davies wrote:

>>> 4 Hide Your SSID
>
>> Achieves nothing.
>
> Actually, it achieves frustration on the part of OTHER people trying to
> ensure their devices don't tramp on the channel(s) you are using.
>
> Like Sebastian implies, don't hide your SSID. But do give it a label that
> doesn't obviously tie it to you. Something like "apeoi4nfmcx" could work.


Better would be something like "PRIVATE_XYZ", which clearly tells people
that this is a private network and any offence is punnishable.


The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy