bugtraq - RE: DANGER ZONE: Internet Explorer

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <200312291938.hBTJcZgZ016519@web176.megawebservers.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:38:35 -0000
From: "http-equiv@...ite.com" <1@...ware.com>
To: <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Cc: <NTBugtraq@...tserv.ntbugtraq.com>
Subject: RE:  DANGER ZONE: Internet Explorer




> You can read more about IE Security Settings at
> 
> 
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/using/howto/security/settings.asp
> 
> from which we can also read about the Trusted Zone that you should:
> 
> "Add a site to this zone only if you trust that it would never 
cause
> harm to your computer."
> 
> Giving any site additional executional privileges means that you 
are
> extending your level of trust. You are trusting that the site in
> question does not get compromised and have its content replaced 
with
> malicious code, and you are trusting that the site does not have 
any XSS
> errors that would allow harmful code injection into the HTML 
stream.

It doesn't actually say that. From the link you provided it says is:

"For example, you might put well-known entertainment or shopping 
sites in the Trusted sites zone with its low levels of security."

You're saying what we are saying and illustrating, not what they are 
saying.

That's the whole point.

See what I am saying.



-- 
http://www.malware.com