full-disclosure - Wireless ISPs

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

Message-ID: <200405120227.42009.fulldisc@ultratux.org>
From: fulldisc at ultratux.org (Maarten)
Subject: Wireless ISPs

On Wednesday 12 May 2004 00:08, Jeff Workman wrote:
> --On Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:16 PM -0400 Sean Milheim <sean@...eus.com>
>
> wrote:
> > However there is also pop3s and imaps.
>
> I make pop3s and imaps available for email users as well as the unencrypted
> versions.  When I tell somebody how to setup their account I tell them that
> they should use the SSL version, and since 99% of them are using Outlook
> Express there's no reason they shouldn't, right?  My mail logs show maybe 3
> people, excluding myself, that use imaps/pop3s, and I am the only user that
> uses STARTTLS with SMTP.

Well, that is in part due to your approach.  I myself would probably find a 
way to bring it like this: "Company policy requires that the most secure 
transport currently available is used. Therefore, as of ../../2004 you _will_ 
need to connect with pop3s, since we no longer offer plain pop3 logins."
Of course, the neccessary help / training should be offered as well.

And, you can always make exceptions for certain people / cases later on.

> Apparently the users don't care, so why should we?

Users are lazy, and uninformed.  Give them a choice and they will always go 
for the status quo / the easiest way. Give them NO choice and you're good.

Maarten