Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Eugene Leitl [mailto:email@example.com] wrote,
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Jamie McCarthy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Well, that's the problem. It's almost like Microsoft wants its users
> > to be vulnerable.
> Almost. It's not that Microsoft wants its users to be vulnerable, but
> Microsoft does want these holes on users systems. This is because these are
> not bugs, they're features. Microsoft products actually use these features.
> Almost all Microsoft products will execute remote commands. The e-mail will
> run commands sent to it. The WordProcessor will execute commands in a
> document. The SpreadSheet will execute commands in a spreadsheet. And
> their browser will execute commands from a remote website. Fixing these
> holes actually breaks a lot of Microsoft features. Most of Microsofts
> automatic upgrade facilities, automatic web publishing facilities, automatic
> project updates between PC's, etc., use these remote commands to modify data
> on remote PCs. They don't want most users to patch these holes, because
> that would break a lot of functionality within their products.
> Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
Basically, the hardware is personal property of its owner.
-- Ross Andrew Finlayson Finlayson Consulting Ross at Tiki-Lounge: http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~raf/ "It's always one more." - Internet multi-player computer game player
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:44 MDT