Path: news.net.uni-c.dk!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!spool01.syd.optusnet.com.au!spool.optusnet.com.au!210.49.20.118.MISMATCH!not-for-mail From: fajp@optushome.com.au (Frank Adam) Newsgroups: comp.lang.basic.visual.database,comp.lang.basic.visual.misc,comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: WARNING! My OE removed the attachment as being unsafe Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 22:53:34 GMT Message-ID: <3c8692e4.100763252@news1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au> References: <3C8435F2.4ED2879A@attglobal.net> <3c851cb0_2@news.iprimus.com.au> <3c853c75.13087585@news1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au> <3c860e75.66855528@news1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au> <3c866698.89421478@news1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 60 NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.164.242.23 X-Trace: 1015455215 18472 203.164.242.23 Xref: news.net.uni-c.dk comp.lang.basic.visual.database:119694 comp.lang.basic.visual.misc:516640 comp.lang.beta:13155 comp.lang.c:585170 On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:31:27 -0800, "Terry Austin" wrote: >was credible. I questioned that, and pointed out they have a >multi-million dollar a year incentive to spread FUD about the >most common (by far) operating system and email client, >and that their credibility is not, therefore, a given. > MS would not sit by idle and take the defamation, if it wasn't true. >You are the one who demanded a guarantee of absolute security. I > No, i simply replied to a one word reply, which indeed was bullshit. You know me, i don't argue over crap, but one guy said "there is no real security" another replied "bullshit". "Real security" to me means peace of mind, but as long as the occasional bullet gets through the defences, i don't feel safe. >merely pointed out that you are applying a different standard to OE >than you apply to Free Agent or whatever email client you use. > FreeAgent can not be flawed as a newsreader. It doesn't handle HTML and since HTML posts are frowned upon anyway on usenet, why should it. ? >> It's pointless blaming the OS, we are talking about OE. >It's never pointless blaming the OS when the OS is the true culprit >in all security vulnerabilities. If Windows didn't support the various >mix-and-match features between applications, OE *couldn't* have >most of the more serious security vulnerabilities. > The OS has very little play in this. OE relies on IE to display it's text. IE is the one with the security problems in 90% of all cases. It is IE which had the little "let's execute attachment automatically" bug(see latest security patch) it was/is also the culprit in the built in cookie broadcaster (no patch yet, AFAIK). People clicking on attachments without a clue is just stupidity and is not OE's or IE's fault. One could argue that IE is about as close to the core of the OS as a program can get, but that is by design (as they say). >>I use the OS >> because i have to and i am aware of it's flaws. >Same is true for OE, for me. > Terry, i don't doubt that you and most of us on these professional groups have no problems. We could at least be classed as power users. My wife works for a large multinational insurance broker company. As you can imagine, with the amount of sensitive data there, network security and maintanance is at the highest level one could fathom... 3 network wide infections so far this year, Win98 stations, IE/OE. >There's very little difference from one email client to the next. > True, only IE. Can we go home now, or do we go another round ? Regards, Frank