| 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
| ||
|
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: WinME firewalling On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 07:43:32 +0530, morning_wood <se_cur_ity@...mail.com> said: > Actualy winMe is quite safe out of the box ( its win9x ) and > does not have the remote compromises that affect winXP / win2k Except that out of the box, it installs IE, and some Outlook variant, and who knows what else that's got horrible holes in it.... Yes, out of the box it's mostly secure against random stray packets that happen to be wandering the net. On the other hand, that's distinct from being "secure" or "safe". Unfortunately, a $50 firewall isn't going to protect against many of the email/web based trojans/viruses. Might try Zone Alarm and tell the granny to panic if something she doesn't know about tries to "phone home" (Probably won't take more than a long afternoon to get it trained which apps are authorized). I hate to say it, but there's no such thing as good, *totally* invisible security. People need to get used to the idea that their computers *do* require ongoing maintenance just like their cars do. Download patches, change the oil, actually pay attention to the alert popups/red dashboard lights, and so on. Yes, trying to make it less obtrusive is a laudable goal, but the user *does* have to take some responsibility here.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 226 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20031109/050bc4c5/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists