Re: Norton Internet Security

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Geoff, Sep 6, 2003.

  1. Geoff

    Geoff Guest

    "Bobby" <> wrote in message
    news:bislt6$v2i$...
    > I have recently installed a broadband connection on my PC. I purchased
    > Norton Internet Security to provide additional protection.
    >
    > When I set-up NIS I did *not* choose the additional security provided by
    > separate accounts (for each user) but when I run the program it asks for

    the
    > supervisor's password. But I didn't set up a supervisor - nor set a
    > password.
    >


    <snip>

    EVERYONE should change the default NIS password.

    Having read your post in other group and having only recently installed NIS
    2003 (*without* setting a password) I thought Behind Asterisks XP might be
    of use. And it was.

    I think it somewhat remiss of Symantec not to *force* a change of password
    during install and/or first run of program.

    Plse excuse me for crossposting now, but I'm interested to here other's
    comments on this apparently insecure security application.

    Geoff
    Geoff, Sep 6, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Geoff

    Colin Wilson Guest

    > Behind Asterisks XP

    Got a link ?

    --
    Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
    or you are likely to be spam filtered :-}
    Colin Wilson, Sep 6, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Geoff

    Colin Wilson Guest

    > Behind Asterisks XP

    Forget that, got it - pity they can`t even get their site to work
    properly with Opera !

    --
    Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
    or you are likely to be spam filtered :-}
    Colin Wilson, Sep 6, 2003
    #3
  4. Geoff

    mto Guest

    "Colin Wilson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > Behind Asterisks XP

    >
    > Forget that, got it - pity they can`t even get their site to work
    > properly with Opera !


    Web design costs $$$ - lots of it. Businesses want to pay as little as
    possible. It takes at least 2X (and sometimes way more) time to build a
    site that works all the time exactly the same for everyone and can take more
    space to boot. 95% of everyone uses IE. Most businesses figure if it works
    in IE and isn't too bad in Netscape everything is good to go. Opera? Who
    cares whether it works in Opera? :)
    mto, Sep 8, 2003
    #4
  5. On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 07:31:46 -0400, "mto"
    <> wrote:

    >"Colin Wilson" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> > Behind Asterisks XP

    >>
    >> Forget that, got it - pity they can`t even get their site to work
    >> properly with Opera !



    >Web design costs $$$ - lots of it. Businesses want to pay as little as
    >possible. It takes at least 2X (and sometimes way more) time to build a
    >site that works all the time exactly the same for everyone and can take more
    >space to boot.


    This is largely a myth. Write a simple straightforward
    standards-compliant site, and it will probably work with all browsers -
    well, all browsers newer than NN4/IE4, anyway. What typically happens is
    that companies spend large quantities of money on *preventing* a site
    from working in all browsers by, for example, introducing large
    quantities of pointless (and browser-specific) Javascript.

    All the really complex aspects of building a web-site are server-side
    (at least if built by competent designers) and thus have nothing at all
    to do with which browser one uses.

    --
    Stephen Poley
    Barendrecht, Holland
    Stephen Poley, Sep 8, 2003
    #5
  6. Geoff

    mto Guest

    "Stephen Poley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 07:31:46 -0400, "mto"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Colin Wilson" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> > Behind Asterisks XP
    > >>
    > >> Forget that, got it - pity they can`t even get their site to work
    > >> properly with Opera !

    >
    >
    > >Web design costs $$$ - lots of it. Businesses want to pay as little as
    > >possible. It takes at least 2X (and sometimes way more) time to build a
    > >site that works all the time exactly the same for everyone and can take

    more
    > >space to boot.

    >
    > This is largely a myth. Write a simple straightforward
    > standards-compliant site, and it will probably work with all browsers -
    > well, all browsers newer than NN4/IE4, anyway. What typically happens is
    > that companies spend large quantities of money on *preventing* a site
    > from working in all browsers by, for example, introducing large
    > quantities of pointless (and browser-specific) Javascript.
    >
    > All the really complex aspects of building a web-site are server-side
    > (at least if built by competent designers) and thus have nothing at all
    > to do with which browser one uses.


    But that is just the point. Didn't you see my tongue in my cheek there? :)
    If one knows the standards and knows how to hack out html that complies with
    both IE's and Netscape's idiosyncracies it is pretty easy to turn out a
    website that functions everywhere. But many, if not most, businesses are
    absolutely positive (knowing nothing about web design and less about
    marketing online) that the more bells and whistles the better. When you
    start talking about making scripts work in both browsers, streaming media
    and all those other bells and whistles we all shut off anyway, *then* you
    start talking bucks. So they pay a bundle for stuff that doesn't do what
    they need, more bundle to fix it, still more bundle to fix it again and
    eventually give up and say to heck with anything but IE. Re server side
    complexity, I don't find that particularly to be the case for the "average"
    web site. Most of the time that is another myth.
    mto, Sep 9, 2003
    #6
  7. On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 21:05:01 -0400, "mto"
    <> wrote:

    >"Stephen Poley" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 07:31:46 -0400, "mto"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >"Colin Wilson" <> wrote in message
    >> >news:...
    >> >> > Behind Asterisks XP
    >> >>
    >> >> Forget that, got it - pity they can`t even get their site to work
    >> >> properly with Opera !

    >>
    >> >Web design costs $$$ - lots of it.

    <snip>
    >>
    >> This is largely a myth.

    <snip>
    >
    >But that is just the point. Didn't you see my tongue in my cheek there? :)


    Ah, no. Sorry.

    > Re server side
    >complexity, I don't find that particularly to be the case for the "average"
    >web site. Most of the time that is another myth.


    Agreed; I should have said something like: if a site actually is doing
    complex things, most/all of the complexity should be on the server.

    --
    Stephen Poley
    Barendrecht, Holland
    Stephen Poley, Sep 9, 2003
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lord Lucan

    norton internet security 2005...

    Lord Lucan, Feb 11, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    499
    Mungo Bulge
    Feb 11, 2005
  2. =?Utf-8?B?Q29sbGVlbg==?=

    Norton Internet Security

    =?Utf-8?B?Q29sbGVlbg==?=, Mar 4, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    531
    DJ Borell
    Mar 4, 2005
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,393
  4. dd
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    583
  5. Jim Watt
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    581
    Jim Watt
    Apr 27, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page