«

It seems like Fri, 1 Oct 2004 21:01:52 +1200 was when "Ron McNulty"
<> said Blah blah blah...

>P.S. I see Harry sort of insulted you recently. Congratulations - that means
>you are talking sense

Thanks, I'm going for the rational point of view Much like United
Future I suppose, but with more power(!) and less sitting on the
fence.

Speaking of that, when's elections?
--
Regards,
Waylon Kenning.

1st Year B.I.T. WelTec

It seems like Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:38:59 +1200 was when "Max Burke"
<> said Blah blah blah...

>There are *ENDLESS* patches with ALL software. It's NOT something that is
>limited to Windows, IE, or OE.

I wouldn't be too sure about that, I've made some programs that don't
have patches, obviously because they had little or no functionality
But seriously, i'd probably say as software complexes increases, so
does it's vulnerability to outside attacks.

When was the last time your Commodore 64 OS need a patch? Or could
even accept a patch for that matter
--
Regards,
Waylon Kenning.

1st Year B.I.T. WelTec

Peter wrote:
>>is there a test JPEG to try?

> This is supposed to be a working example.
> http://easynews.com/test/possiblevirus.jpg.gz
> I don't know if it is or not - can't test it here as I have no Microsoft
> software. AFAIK you need Microsoft software to run viruses.

it "works" in moz too apparently.
you just got to be running windows... well, windows without the patch.

Waylon Kenning wrote:

> It seems like Fri, 1 Oct 2004 21:01:52 +1200 was when "Ron McNulty"
> <> said Blah blah blah...
>
>>P.S. I see Harry sort of insulted you recently. Congratulations - that
>>means you are talking sense
>
> Thanks, I'm going for the rational point of view Much like United
> Future I suppose, but with more power(!) and less sitting on the
> fence.

Rational?

Here is a quote from United Future:

"United Future Will:"
"Reduce company tax to 30 cents in the dollar over the next three years"
"Abolish fringe benefit tax and phase out the remaining excise duties "

Abolish fringe benefit tax!!?

So everyone will be able to freely divert income directly into perks, like
cars, travel, accomodation, etc and avoid paying income tax.

Fringe benefit tax exists for a very sound reason. It would be quite
irrational to abolish it, unless income tax was also to be abolished.

Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>> This is supposed to be a working example.
>> http://easynews.com/test/possiblevirus.jpg.gz
>> I don't know if it is or not - can't test it here as I have no Microsoft
>> software. AFAIK you need Microsoft software to run viruses.
> it "works" in moz too apparently.
> you just got to be running windows... well, windows without the patch.

I use Mozilla here - when I try to open that jpg it just shows as an empty
white box. Probably only works with Microsoft software, ie Windows.

Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
>
> it "works" in moz too apparently.
> you just got to be running windows... well, windows without the patch.

I save it to disk, unzip it and Norton nails it into oblivion. I'm not
sure that I want to disable my virus protection and try it again (Win2K,
FF).

--
EMB
change two to the number to reply

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:31:51 +1200, "AD." <> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:57:53 +1200, Gavin Tunney wrote:
>
>> I have the odd ironic laugh at people who rave about other browsers
>> sometimes Anton, especially when they make comments about IE security. It
>> takes an hour or two to figure out IE & how to use it safely, anyone who
>> has ever gotten a worm, virus, spyware etc via IE simply haven't spent
>> that time learning it. Maybe people are too lazy, maybe they just can't
>> grasp the concept, maybe it's too difficult for some... I dunno, all I can
>> say is I had no trouble figuring it out.
>
><snipped - too long to reply to individual points>
>
>Your response reminds me of Sendmail users in the past refusing to accept
>that they used insecure software. Sure they may have patched it diligently
>and worked around a few insecure settings. Security problems only happen
>to the lazy or the ignorant they used to say.
>
>Never mind that Sendmail was a monolithic design that ran as root. Compare
>that with Postfix for instance where the security comes from the design
>rather than the fact people are endlessly patching it.
>

Anton you surprise me here mate, you seem to have missed the point of
what I was saying. IE security comes from the design of the network
zones concept. You say that IE has root access. It has whatever access
is permitted it according to the zone its operating in and the
permissions set for that zone. It can be given what amounts to root
access, it can also be completely restricted to virtually no access at
all. ActiveX has root access, but if you don't want it to have that
access then you can disable it in any of the zones.

When people change away from IE they're not just changing their web
browser. They're stopping using the security zones. It's the security
zone concept that is the root cause of virtually all IE and OE
security problems, not the apps themselves. I don't know of any kernel
level exploits of IE or OE, there would have been some but they'd be
pretty rare. This jpeg thing looks to be close, rendering images is an
integral IE function, but it also looks to be an issue with an
external library rather than within IE itself

Microsoft's security zones are an integral part of both OE and IE, its
all inextricably entwined. MS made it clear years ago that their
security concept revolved around the user deciding their own security
levels, and they provided the network zones plus ample means of
configuring those zones. If you use either IE or OE you also have to
know how to use the zones. People don't know how to use them, so they
get viruses, worms etc.

>I see parallels with people defending IEs security. The defenders are
>unwilling to blame the design, preferring to blame the victims or the
>admins for not keeping up with endless patches.
>

Who's defending IE security? I just pointed out that IE can be made
secure, and that "IE Security" is synonymous with "User Security"

About all I'm defending is intelligent conversation. Most of the
people who keep slagging off IE & OE etc in this NG display a
fundamental lack of understanding of Windows and how it works. As far
as Windows is concerned these characters are just users, barely
competent ones at that. They reveal that virtually every time they
open their trap. Believe me Anton, it gets very bloody boring when
ignorance rules. It wouldn't be so bad if the MS criticisms were
actually valid, God knows there's enough to rip into there. But when
it's the same old regurgitated pap from people who haven't the
faintest idea about Windows it really does get a little tedious.

>If people have found that many exploits in the past, how many others are
>floating around that you don't know about?
>

Probably the same amount as in every OS & app

>Claiming that you've never been exploited through IE is irrelevant - how
>many users have been exploited though Mozilla. My intention wasn't to
>claim perfection for Mozilla, it obviously isn't.
>

Nope, nothing's perfect is it.

>My response wasn't drawn by IE itself - it was drawn by users of an app
>with a poor security record supposedly 'having a laugh' at users of
>another app because they had befallen the same fate (on a smaller scale).
>I stand behind that pool of **** analogy - maybe I should've used the
>glasshouses and stones one.
>

Well I can't really comment on that because I don't know of any such
instances. But my observations are that the targets of criticism of
any alternative bowser tend to be those who are such strident critics
of OE and IE. I believe the terms cant & hubris are somewhat relevant
there.

Cheers

GT

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:15:03 +1200, Patrick Dunford
<> wrote:

Ns,ip>
>
>If scripting is not enabled then you miss out on a huge lot of
>functionality. Some sites now will not work at all with javascript etc
>disabled.
>
>It's not javascript's fault, why are you making excuses for MS?

Go away Patrick. You bore the hell out of me with your belligerent
negativity towards everything & I'm not in the slightest bit
interested in getting into an argument with you.

Gavin

Hey Waylon

"Harry" seems to think you are a teacher - I had you as a student. Which one
of us is deluded?

Regards

Ron

"Waylon Kenning" <> wrote in message
news:...
> It seems like Fri, 1 Oct 2004 21:01:52 +1200 was when "Ron McNulty"
> <> said Blah blah blah...
>
> >P.S. I see Harry sort of insulted you recently. Congratulations - that
means
> >you are talking sense
>
> Thanks, I'm going for the rational point of view Much like United
> Future I suppose, but with more power(!) and less sitting on the
> fence.
>
> Speaking of that, when's elections?
> --
> Regards,
> Waylon Kenning.
>
> 1st Year B.I.T. WelTec

A correct but odd point of view from someone who says they make $200k per
year running their own companies?

You could make a mint from such a policy if it ever became law

Regards

Ron

"Harry" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Waylon Kenning wrote:
>
> > It seems like Fri, 1 Oct 2004 21:01:52 +1200 was when "Ron McNulty"
> > <> said Blah blah blah...
> >
> >>P.S. I see Harry sort of insulted you recently. Congratulations - that
> >>means you are talking sense
> >
> > Thanks, I'm going for the rational point of view Much like United
> > Future I suppose, but with more power(!) and less sitting on the
> > fence.
>
> Rational?
>
> Here is a quote from United Future:
>
> "United Future Will:"
> "Reduce company tax to 30 cents in the dollar over the next three
years"
> "Abolish fringe benefit tax and phase out the remaining excise duties
"
>
> Abolish fringe benefit tax!!?
>
> So everyone will be able to freely divert income directly into perks, like
> cars, travel, accomodation, etc and avoid paying income tax.
>
> Fringe benefit tax exists for a very sound reason. It would be quite
> irrational to abolish it, unless income tax was also to be abolished.
>