full-disclosure - [in] Re: IE is just as safe as FireFox

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

From: mvp at joeware.net (joe)
Subject: [in] Re: IE is just as safe as FireFox 

I think if the main design of any system was run as mortal and do runas for
things that need more, you would have a system that by default, NEVER
allowed interactive logon to an account that does more. Further it wouldn't
let you change that code to allow it. Heck I would even take it further and
say that the raised levels of access would be process only based, once that
process completed, it would revert.

  joe

--
Pro-Choice
Let me choose if I even want a browser loaded thanks!

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com
[mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com] On Behalf Of
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 5:14 PM
To: Crotty, Edward
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
Subject: Re: [in] Re: [Full-Disclosure] IE is just as safe as FireFox 

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:12:31 EST, "Crotty, Edward" said:
> I'm not a Win based guy (troll?) - Un*x here - and even I was offended by
#1.
> 
> There is such a thing as "runas" for Windows.

Yes, but is *the main design* of the system "run as a mortal, and use the
'runas' for those things that need more"?

Or is the *main design* "We'll just elect the first user as Administrator,
and include 'runas' in case somebody wants to Do It The Right Way"?