Stop Using Internet Explorer NOW!

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/03/attacks_on_internet_explorer_f_1.html

Of course one of MS's solutions is to download and use its buggy beta
of IE7, that's how much they care about its users!

Use any browser that doesn't use the IE engine at all. I use Firefox,
myself.

Anyone that uses IE is asking for problems, and MS is too slow to get
out a patch to its users. Dump IE! It is the ONLY intelligent
solution!

Imhotep
Mon Mar 27 09:09:24 CST 2006

I have been saying that for years. The problem is that you have too many MS
zombies (or drones if you prefer) who can not think for themselves...

IE is a Bomb! wrote:

>
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/03/attacks_on_internet_explorer_f_1.html
>
> Of course one of MS's solutions is to download and use its buggy beta
> of IE7, that's how much they care about its users!
>
> Use any browser that doesn't use the IE engine at all. I use Firefox,
> myself.
>
> Anyone that uses IE is asking for problems, and MS is too slow to get
> out a patch to its users. Dump IE! It is the ONLY intelligent
> solution!

Dave
Mon Mar 27 09:49:19 CST 2006

How about that, a beta with bugs, what are they thinking?
Can we file this post under useless, uninformed ramblings?

"IE is a Bomb!" <ieisanaccidentthathasalreadyhappened@youhavebeenwarned.org>
wrote in message news:nerf2290o0da9ln5k85eetcrfv7lon6bhm@4ax.com...
> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/03/attacks_on_internet_explorer_f_1.html
>
> Of course one of MS's solutions is to download and use its buggy beta
> of IE7, that's how much they care about its users!
>
> Use any browser that doesn't use the IE engine at all. I use Firefox,
> myself.
>
> Anyone that uses IE is asking for problems, and MS is too slow to get
> out a patch to its users. Dump IE! It is the ONLY intelligent
> solution!
>

WTC
Mon Mar 27 12:25:48 CST 2006

"IE is a Bomb!" <ieisanaccidentthathasalreadyhappened@youhavebeenwarned.org>
wrote in message news:nerf2290o0da9ln5k85eetcrfv7lon6bhm@4ax.com...
> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/03/attacks_on_internet_explorer_f_1.html
>
> Of course one of MS's solutions is to download and use its buggy beta
> of IE7, that's how much they care about its users!
>
> Use any browser that doesn't use the IE engine at all. I use Firefox,
> myself.
>
> Anyone that uses IE is asking for problems, and MS is too slow to get
> out a patch to its users. Dump IE! It is the ONLY intelligent
> solution!

The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited user (not
administrator or power user) and have a properly configured Internet
Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a very difficult time
to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the solution.

--
William Crawford
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

Jon
Mon Mar 27 12:39:24 CST 2006


>
> The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited user
> (not administrator or power user) and have a properly configured Internet
> Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a very difficult
> time to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the solution.
>
> --
> William Crawford
> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
>

What would be handy, following on from that, would be a (one-click) way of
quickly toggle the privilege level of an account between administrator and
'limited' ie without having to plough through the User Accounts menus.

Perhaps someone already knows of a good solution to that.

Jon

MikeChiodo
Mon Mar 27 12:42:02 CST 2006

Why not configure IE and Windows security correctly so that does not happen?

"IE is a Bomb!" wrote:

> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/03/attacks_on_internet_explorer_f_1.html
>
> Of course one of MS's solutions is to download and use its buggy beta
> of IE7, that's how much they care about its users!
>
> Use any browser that doesn't use the IE engine at all. I use Firefox,
> myself.
>
> Anyone that uses IE is asking for problems, and MS is too slow to get
> out a patch to its users. Dump IE! It is the ONLY intelligent
> solution!
>
>

Patti
Mon Mar 27 12:53:38 CST 2006



"Jon" <Email_Address@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
news:%23KPMH3cUGHA.4300@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
>>
>> The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited user
>> (not administrator or power user) and have a properly configured Internet
>> Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a very difficult
>> time to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the solution.
>>
>> --
>> William Crawford
>> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
>>
>
> What would be handy, following on from that, would be a (one-click) way of
> quickly toggle the privilege level of an account between administrator and
> 'limited' ie without having to plough through the User Accounts menus.
>
> Perhaps someone already knows of a good solution to that.
>
> Jon

Creating two accounts, one Admin and one Limited, then utilizing Fast User
Switching, although it takes a few clicks, is a good solution to that.



Regards,

--
Patti MacLeod
Microsoft MVP - Windows Shell/User

Jon
Mon Mar 27 13:12:18 CST 2006

>>> The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited user
>>> (not administrator or power user) and have a properly configured
>>> Internet Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a very
>>> difficult time to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the
>>> solution.
>>>
>>> --
>>> William Crawford
>>> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
>>>
>>
>> What would be handy, following on from that, would be a (one-click) way
>> of quickly toggle the privilege level of an account between administrator
>> and 'limited' ie without having to plough through the User Accounts
>> menus.
>>
>> Perhaps someone already knows of a good solution to that.
>>
>> Jon
>
> Creating two accounts, one Admin and one Limited, then utilizing Fast User
> Switching, although it takes a few clicks, is a good solution to that.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Patti MacLeod
> Microsoft MVP - Windows Shell/User
>

Yeah, not bad. I suppose I was thinking of a quick toggle button (perhaps
requiring you to enter a password for security's sake) that you could press
to downgrade your account (eg prior to surfing the net) and upgrade it (eg
prior to installing a new piece of software). Perhaps a good solution would
be to script that "Fast user switching" process, that you mentioned, or
perhaps something via the "net user" command. Something to ponder anyhow.
Thanks.

Jon

WTC
Mon Mar 27 13:35:49 CST 2006

"Jon" <Email_Address@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
news:OSI3fJdUGHA.5372@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>> The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited user
>>>> (not administrator or power user) and have a properly configured
>>>> Internet Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a very
>>>> difficult time to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the
>>>> solution.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> William Crawford
>>>> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
>>>>
>>>
>>> What would be handy, following on from that, would be a (one-click) way
>>> of quickly toggle the privilege level of an account between
>>> administrator and 'limited' ie without having to plough through the User
>>> Accounts menus.
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone already knows of a good solution to that.
>>>
>>> Jon
>>
>> Creating two accounts, one Admin and one Limited, then utilizing Fast
>> User Switching, although it takes a few clicks, is a good solution to
>> that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Patti MacLeod
>> Microsoft MVP - Windows Shell/User
>>
>
> Yeah, not bad. I suppose I was thinking of a quick toggle button (perhaps
> requiring you to enter a password for security's sake) that you could
> press to downgrade your account (eg prior to surfing the net) and upgrade
> it (eg prior to installing a new piece of software). Perhaps a good
> solution would be to script that "Fast user switching" process, that you
> mentioned, or perhaps something via the "net user" command. Something to
> ponder anyhow. Thanks.
>

This something I do when I need Admin level privileges when running as a
Limited User is to use the RunAs command. Right-click a program/shortcut and
you should see "Run as..." on the context menu or type "runas /?" in the
command prompt or "runas" in the Help and Support for more information.

--
William Crawford
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

Jon
Mon Mar 27 13:49:53 CST 2006


"WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ObSPmWdUGHA.2800@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "Jon" <Email_Address@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
> news:OSI3fJdUGHA.5372@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>> The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited user
>>>>> (not administrator or power user) and have a properly configured
>>>>> Internet Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a very
>>>>> difficult time to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the
>>>>> solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> William Crawford
>>>>> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What would be handy, following on from that, would be a (one-click) way
>>>> of quickly toggle the privilege level of an account between
>>>> administrator and 'limited' ie without having to plough through the
>>>> User Accounts menus.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps someone already knows of a good solution to that.
>>>>
>>>> Jon
>>>
>>> Creating two accounts, one Admin and one Limited, then utilizing Fast
>>> User Switching, although it takes a few clicks, is a good solution to
>>> that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Patti MacLeod
>>> Microsoft MVP - Windows Shell/User
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, not bad. I suppose I was thinking of a quick toggle button (perhaps
>> requiring you to enter a password for security's sake) that you could
>> press to downgrade your account (eg prior to surfing the net) and upgrade
>> it (eg prior to installing a new piece of software). Perhaps a good
>> solution would be to script that "Fast user switching" process, that you
>> mentioned, or perhaps something via the "net user" command. Something to
>> ponder anyhow. Thanks.
>>
>
> This something I do when I need Admin level privileges when running as a
> Limited User is to use the RunAs command. Right-click a program/shortcut
> and you should see "Run as..." on the context menu or type "runas /?" in
> the command prompt or "runas" in the Help and Support for more
> information.
>
> --
> William Crawford
> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
>
Yes, thanks for that. Good suggestion.

Just tried creating a shortcut to "User Accounts"
C:\WINDOWS\system32\nusrmgr.cpl

on the desktop, which also allows that "Run as" option you mentioned.

Using that you can toggle the account between a limited and Admininstrator
account, without leaving the account (as I've done previously to change the
account status back to Administrator from limited).

Thanks again.

Jon

Stephen
Mon Mar 27 13:49:55 CST 2006

> Anyone that uses IE is asking for problems, and MS is too slow to get
> out a patch to its users.

It is not that they too slow, it is Microsoft's stupid policy again.
Did they not learn anything out of the WMF flaw bug?

See here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4849904.stm
where it makes it clear that MS is waiting 11 days before these bugs are
fixed.

But whenever an exploit is 0-day (as this is), Microsoft don't have any
time.
I predict that over the next 11 days this problem will get significantly
worse and MS will get criticised (rightly so) for failing to release a bug
fix.

Whenever it is "0-day" exploit and it is serious, MS have to get active and
release out-of-cycle.

Stephen Howe

q_q_anonymous
Mon Mar 27 14:45:16 CST 2006


WTC (remove) wrote:
> "Jon" <Email_Address@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
> news:OSI3fJdUGHA.5372@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >>>> The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited user
> >>>> (not administrator or power user) and have a properly configured
> >>>> Internet Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a very
> >>>> difficult time to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the
> >>>> solution.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> William Crawford
> >>>> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> What would be handy, following on from that, would be a (one-click) way
> >>> of quickly toggle the privilege level of an account between
> >>> administrator and 'limited' ie without having to plough through the User
> >>> Accounts menus.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps someone already knows of a good solution to that.
> >>>
> >>> Jon
> >>
> >> Creating two accounts, one Admin and one Limited, then utilizing Fast
> >> User Switching, although it takes a few clicks, is a good solution to
> >> that.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Patti MacLeod
> >> Microsoft MVP - Windows Shell/User
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, not bad. I suppose I was thinking of a quick toggle button (perhaps
> > requiring you to enter a password for security's sake) that you could
> > press to downgrade your account (eg prior to surfing the net) and upgrade
> > it (eg prior to installing a new piece of software). Perhaps a good
> > solution would be to script that "Fast user switching" process, that you
> > mentioned, or perhaps something via the "net user" command. Something to
> > ponder anyhow. Thanks.
> >
>
> This something I do when I need Admin level privileges when running as a
> Limited User is to use the RunAs command. Right-click a program/shortcut and
> you should see "Run as..." on the context menu or type "runas /?" in the
> command prompt or "runas" in the Help and Support for more information.
>
> --
> William Crawford
> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

what technically are the restrictions on limited users?
"sometimes they can't install programs"?
so, the can run an EXE, but not if the EXE puts files on the drive?
not if the EXE creates a directory?

WTC
Mon Mar 27 15:09:26 CST 2006

<q_q_anonymous@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1143492316.877738.281180@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> WTC (remove) wrote:
>> "Jon" <Email_Address@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
>> news:OSI3fJdUGHA.5372@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> >>>> The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited
>> >>>> user
>> >>>> (not administrator or power user) and have a properly configured
>> >>>> Internet Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a
>> >>>> very
>> >>>> difficult time to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the
>> >>>> solution.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> William Crawford
>> >>>> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> What would be handy, following on from that, would be a (one-click)
>> >>> way
>> >>> of quickly toggle the privilege level of an account between
>> >>> administrator and 'limited' ie without having to plough through the
>> >>> User
>> >>> Accounts menus.
>> >>>
>> >>> Perhaps someone already knows of a good solution to that.
>> >>>
>> >>> Jon
>> >>
>> >> Creating two accounts, one Admin and one Limited, then utilizing Fast
>> >> User Switching, although it takes a few clicks, is a good solution to
>> >> that.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Patti MacLeod
>> >> Microsoft MVP - Windows Shell/User
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yeah, not bad. I suppose I was thinking of a quick toggle button
>> > (perhaps
>> > requiring you to enter a password for security's sake) that you could
>> > press to downgrade your account (eg prior to surfing the net) and
>> > upgrade
>> > it (eg prior to installing a new piece of software). Perhaps a good
>> > solution would be to script that "Fast user switching" process, that
>> > you
>> > mentioned, or perhaps something via the "net user" command. Something
>> > to
>> > ponder anyhow. Thanks.
>> >
>>
>> This something I do when I need Admin level privileges when running as a
>> Limited User is to use the RunAs command. Right-click a program/shortcut
>> and
>> you should see "Run as..." on the context menu or type "runas /?" in the
>> command prompt or "runas" in the Help and Support for more information.
>>
>> --
>> William Crawford
>> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
>
> what technically are the restrictions on limited users?
> "sometimes they can't install programs"?
> so, the can run an EXE, but not if the EXE puts files on the drive?
> not if the EXE creates a directory?
>


Start reading these articles

Applying the Principle of Least Privilege to User Accounts on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/luawinxp.mspx

Using a Least-Privileged User Account
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/secnews/articles/lpuseacc.mspx

--
William Crawford
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

Gordon
Mon Mar 27 15:22:20 CST 2006

WTC wrote:


>
> The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited user

But as most pre-installed instances of XP come with NO admin password, it
doesn't MATTER whether the user runs as limited or not - with NO admin
password a script can run as admin without the user's knowledge.......

--
Gordon Burgess-Parker
Interim Systems and Management Accounting
www.gbpcomputing.co.uk

Enkidu
Mon Mar 27 15:35:31 CST 2006

WTC wrote:
>
> The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited
> user (not administrator or power user) and have a properly configured
> Internet Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a very
> difficult time to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the
> solution.
>
While I agree that this is a solution, I can't see that this helps the
kind of user who refers to the computer case and its contents as "the
hard drive", and thinks that the browser is Windows and Outlook Express
is 'the email'.

Cheers,

Cliff

Leythos
Mon Mar 27 16:14:08 CST 2006

In article <e7F5evcUGHA.5108@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, "WTC" <bcrawfordjr
(remove)@hotmail.com> says...
> The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited user (not
> administrator or power user) and have a properly configured Internet
> Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a very difficult time
> to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the solution.

Look at this from the perspective of a typical user:

1) They have no clue that there is another exploit
2) They don't know how to configure for High-Security
3) They don't understand trusted zone settings or how to add non-HTTPS
sites to it
4) They don't know which sites are good and which are not
5) In high-security mode, many websites are broken and don't display
properly.

FireFox, while not a perfect browser, does keep them from having to
constantly worry about the existing and new holes in the browser, the
default install will also prompt the user when updates come out (as does
Windows in most cases), and the user doesn't have to deal with many
sites not rendering properly.

We reduced service calls by 30% by switching users from IE to FireFox.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
Mon Mar 27 17:36:32 CST 2006

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:14:08 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <e7F5evcUGHA.5108@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, "WTC" <bcrawfordjr
>(remove)@hotmail.com> says...
>> The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited user (not
>> administrator or power user) and have a properly configured Internet
>> Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a very difficult time
>> to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the solution.
>
>Look at this from the perspective of a typical user:
>
>1) They have no clue that there is another exploit
>2) They don't know how to configure for High-Security
>3) They don't understand trusted zone settings or how to add non-HTTPS
>sites to it
>4) They don't know which sites are good and which are not
>5) In high-security mode, many websites are broken and don't display
>properly.
>
>FireFox, while not a perfect browser, does keep them from having to
>constantly worry about the existing and new holes in the browser, the
>default install will also prompt the user when updates come out (as does
>Windows in most cases), and the user doesn't have to deal with many
>sites not rendering properly.
>
>We reduced service calls by 30% by switching users from IE to FireFox.

IOW, you agreed with my post! LOL!

Hey MicroCensor, are you gonna delete this whole thread now because it
was start by your arch-nemesis, KURTTRAIL the unstoppable? ROFL!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity/index.php?showtopic=3
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Eugene
Mon Mar 27 18:37:26 CST 2006

WTC wrote:

> "IE is a Bomb!"
> <ieisanaccidentthathasalreadyhappened@youhavebeenwarned.org> wrote in
> message news:nerf2290o0da9ln5k85eetcrfv7lon6bhm@4ax.com...
>>
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/03/attacks_on_internet_explorer_f_1.html
>>
>> Of course one of MS's solutions is to download and use its buggy beta
>> of IE7, that's how much they care about its users!
>>
>> Use any browser that doesn't use the IE engine at all. I use Firefox,
>> myself.
>>
>> Anyone that uses IE is asking for problems, and MS is too slow to get
>> out a patch to its users. Dump IE! It is the ONLY intelligent
>> solution!
>
> The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited user
> (not administrator or power user) and have a properly configured Internet
> Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a very difficult
> time to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the solution.
>

Good thing you wrote very difficult time and not impossible here. I was
running as a non administrator with everything locked down as tight as I
could and mistyped a web site address and ended up on some porn site in
some other language and was infected with spyware before I could close the
browser.

IE
Mon Mar 27 18:44:02 CST 2006

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:25:48 -0800, "WTC"
<bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"IE is a Bomb!" <ieisanaccidentthathasalreadyhappened@youhavebeenwarned.org>
>wrote in message news:nerf2290o0da9ln5k85eetcrfv7lon6bhm@4ax.com...
>> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/03/attacks_on_internet_explorer_f_1.html
>>
>> Of course one of MS's solutions is to download and use its buggy beta
>> of IE7, that's how much they care about its users!
>>
>> Use any browser that doesn't use the IE engine at all. I use Firefox,
>> myself.
>>
>> Anyone that uses IE is asking for problems, and MS is too slow to get
>> out a patch to its users. Dump IE! It is the ONLY intelligent
>> solution!
>
>The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited user (not
>administrator or power user) and have a properly configured Internet
>Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a very difficult time
>to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the solution.

ROFL! You are a dunce. I didn't say that Firefox is the solution! I
said, "Dump IE! It is the ONLY intelligent solution!"

But please, be my guest and continue using IE! Some people have the
compulsion to play with fire, and you must be one of them.

Leythos
Mon Mar 27 19:23:07 CST 2006

In article <bhtg22d132c6d0uvj9l829t65p9f9h8gt0@4ax.com>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org says...
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:14:08 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
> >In article <e7F5evcUGHA.5108@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, "WTC" <bcrawfordjr
> >(remove)@hotmail.com> says...
> >> The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited user (not
> >> administrator or power user) and have a properly configured Internet
> >> Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a very difficult time
> >> to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the solution.
> >
> >Look at this from the perspective of a typical user:
> >
> >1) They have no clue that there is another exploit
> >2) They don't know how to configure for High-Security
> >3) They don't understand trusted zone settings or how to add non-HTTPS
> >sites to it
> >4) They don't know which sites are good and which are not
> >5) In high-security mode, many websites are broken and don't display
> >properly.
> >
> >FireFox, while not a perfect browser, does keep them from having to
> >constantly worry about the existing and new holes in the browser, the
> >default install will also prompt the user when updates come out (as does
> >Windows in most cases), and the user doesn't have to deal with many
> >sites not rendering properly.
> >
> >We reduced service calls by 30% by switching users from IE to FireFox.
>
> IOW, you agreed with my post! LOL!

Sort of, I agree that IE is a security risk, even when properly
configured, but I also disagree without you on FireFox. I feel that
FireFox IS the solution, even with its problems.

The real issue is the morons that code sites that don't work with
mainstream browsers - the ones that did IE only testing.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
Mon Mar 27 19:40:41 CST 2006

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:23:07 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <bhtg22d132c6d0uvj9l829t65p9f9h8gt0@4ax.com>,
>dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org says...
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:14:08 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <e7F5evcUGHA.5108@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, "WTC" <bcrawfordjr
>> >(remove)@hotmail.com> says...
>> >> The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited user (not
>> >> administrator or power user) and have a properly configured Internet
>> >> Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a very difficult time
>> >> to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the solution.
>> >
>> >Look at this from the perspective of a typical user:
>> >
>> >1) They have no clue that there is another exploit
>> >2) They don't know how to configure for High-Security
>> >3) They don't understand trusted zone settings or how to add non-HTTPS
>> >sites to it
>> >4) They don't know which sites are good and which are not
>> >5) In high-security mode, many websites are broken and don't display
>> >properly.
>> >
>> >FireFox, while not a perfect browser, does keep them from having to
>> >constantly worry about the existing and new holes in the browser, the
>> >default install will also prompt the user when updates come out (as does
>> >Windows in most cases), and the user doesn't have to deal with many
>> >sites not rendering properly.
>> >
>> >We reduced service calls by 30% by switching users from IE to FireFox.
>>
>> IOW, you agreed with my post! LOL!
>
>Sort of, I agree that IE is a security risk, even when properly
>configured, but I also disagree without you on FireFox. I feel that
>FireFox IS the solution, even with its problems.
>
>The real issue is the morons that code sites that don't work with
>mainstream browsers - the ones that did IE only testing.

I think that Firefox is only PART of the solution, as the real enemy
to Inet security is homogeny, as no one browser or OS will ever be
perfect.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

IE
Mon Mar 27 19:47:13 CST 2006

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:49:19 -0500, "Dave B" <mail@mail.com> wrote:

>"IE is a Bomb!" <ieisanaccidentthathasalreadyhappened@youhavebeenwarned.org>
>wrote in message news:nerf2290o0da9ln5k85eetcrfv7lon6bhm@4ax.com...
>> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/03/attacks_on_internet_explorer_f_1.html
>>
>> Of course one of MS's solutions is to download and use its buggy beta
>> of IE7, that's how much they care about its users!
>>
>> Use any browser that doesn't use the IE engine at all. I use Firefox,
>> myself.
>>
>> Anyone that uses IE is asking for problems, and MS is too slow to get
>> out a patch to its users. Dump IE! It is the ONLY intelligent
>> solution!
>>
>How about that, a beta with bugs, what are they thinking?
>Can we file this post under useless, uninformed ramblings?
>

Sure! Your post is a useless, uninformed rambling.

Telling the masses to install a beta as a workaround to the latest
trio of IE wholes is just shear negligence.

Both Google and MS should be horsewhipped for bringing Betas to the
masses of computer illiterati. The ignorant should NEVER be
encouraged to install software that is still in the testing phase.

Notan
Mon Mar 27 19:52:02 CST 2006

"IE is a Bomb!" wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Both Google and MS should be horsewhipped for bringing Betas to the
> masses of computer illiterati. The ignorant should NEVER be
> encouraged to install software that is still in the testing phase.

I've always gotten a kick out of companies, such as Microsoft, that
have the masses test their software for them, at no charge, *then*
charge those same individuals full price for the final product.

Notan

IE
Mon Mar 27 21:56:28 CST 2006

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:52:49 -0500, IE is a Bomb!
<ieisanaccidentthathasalreadyhappened@youhavebeenwarned.org> wrote:

>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/03/attacks_on_internet_explorer_f_1.html
>
>Of course one of MS's solutions is to download and use its buggy beta
>of IE7, that's how much they care about its users!
>
>Use any browser that doesn't use the IE engine at all. I use Firefox,
>myself.
>
>Anyone that uses IE is asking for problems, and MS is too slow to get
>out a patch to its users. Dump IE! It is the ONLY intelligent
>solution!

http://www.eeye.com/html/research/alerts/AL20060324.html

For anyone foolish enough to use IE, and want to keep active scripting
enabled, eEye has come up with a temp patch, until MS can get around
to plugging its IE security disaster.

Why MS isn't doing the same is beyond me! MS must be trying to drum
up business for its new line of security products! ;-)

Imhotep
Mon Mar 27 22:51:55 CST 2006

..well, there are in the spyware business now! Think about it, if they fixed
their software they could not sell you anti-spyware for it!

Im

IE is a Bomb! wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:52:49 -0500, IE is a Bomb!
> <ieisanaccidentthathasalreadyhappened@youhavebeenwarned.org> wrote:
>
>>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/03/attacks_on_internet_explorer_f_1.html
>>
>>Of course one of MS's solutions is to download and use its buggy beta
>>of IE7, that's how much they care about its users!
>>
>>Use any browser that doesn't use the IE engine at all. I use Firefox,
>>myself.
>>
>>Anyone that uses IE is asking for problems, and MS is too slow to get
>>out a patch to its users. Dump IE! It is the ONLY intelligent
>>solution!
>
> http://www.eeye.com/html/research/alerts/AL20060324.html
>
> For anyone foolish enough to use IE, and want to keep active scripting
> enabled, eEye has come up with a temp patch, until MS can get around
> to plugging its IE security disaster.
>
> Why MS isn't doing the same is beyond me! MS must be trying to drum
> up business for its new line of security products! ;-)

Imhotep
Mon Mar 27 22:53:26 CST 2006

...can I have some of what you are smoking? It *MUST* be good stuff...

Im

Mike Chiodo wrote:

> Why not configure IE and Windows security correctly so that does not
> happen?
>
> "IE is a Bomb!" wrote:
>
>>
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/03/attacks_on_internet_explorer_f_1.html
>>
>> Of course one of MS's solutions is to download and use its buggy beta
>> of IE7, that's how much they care about its users!
>>
>> Use any browser that doesn't use the IE engine at all. I use Firefox,
>> myself.
>>
>> Anyone that uses IE is asking for problems, and MS is too slow to get
>> out a patch to its users. Dump IE! It is the ONLY intelligent
>> solution!
>>
>>

Imhotep
Mon Mar 27 22:56:04 CST 2006

Although I agree with part of your statement (run uses with non-priv
accounts) I beg to differ on the Firefox comment. Firefox is a much better
product and has not had 10% of the security problems IE has. Face it, facts
are facts, regardless of personal feelings....


IM

WTC wrote:

> "IE is a Bomb!"
> <ieisanaccidentthathasalreadyhappened@youhavebeenwarned.org> wrote in
> message news:nerf2290o0da9ln5k85eetcrfv7lon6bhm@4ax.com...
>>
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/03/attacks_on_internet_explorer_f_1.html
>>
>> Of course one of MS's solutions is to download and use its buggy beta
>> of IE7, that's how much they care about its users!
>>
>> Use any browser that doesn't use the IE engine at all. I use Firefox,
>> myself.
>>
>> Anyone that uses IE is asking for problems, and MS is too slow to get
>> out a patch to its users. Dump IE! It is the ONLY intelligent
>> solution!
>
> The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited user
> (not administrator or power user) and have a properly configured Internet
> Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a very difficult
> time to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the solution.
>

Imhotep
Mon Mar 27 22:56:39 CST 2006

Yup!

IE is a Bomb! wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:25:48 -0800, "WTC"
> <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"IE is a Bomb!"
>><ieisanaccidentthathasalreadyhappened@youhavebeenwarned.org> wrote in
>>message news:nerf2290o0da9ln5k85eetcrfv7lon6bhm@4ax.com...
>>>
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/03/attacks_on_internet_explorer_f_1.html
>>>
>>> Of course one of MS's solutions is to download and use its buggy beta
>>> of IE7, that's how much they care about its users!
>>>
>>> Use any browser that doesn't use the IE engine at all. I use Firefox,
>>> myself.
>>>
>>> Anyone that uses IE is asking for problems, and MS is too slow to get
>>> out a patch to its users. Dump IE! It is the ONLY intelligent
>>> solution!
>>
>>The "ONLY intelligent solution" is for user a to run as a limited user
>>(not administrator or power user) and have a properly configured Internet
>>Explorer. Then exploits and malware/spyware will have a very difficult
>>time to run or install on the computer. Firefox is not the solution.
>
> ROFL! You are a dunce. I didn't say that Firefox is the solution! I
> said, "Dump IE! It is the ONLY intelligent solution!"
>
> But please, be my guest and continue using IE! Some people have the
> compulsion to play with fire, and you must be one of them.

Imhotep
Mon Mar 27 23:03:44 CST 2006

You know, I have always laughed at that too!

Notan wrote:

> "IE is a Bomb!" wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Both Google and MS should be horsewhipped for bringing Betas to the
>> masses of computer illiterati. The ignorant should NEVER be
>> encouraged to install software that is still in the testing phase.
>
> I've always gotten a kick out of companies, such as Microsoft, that
> have the masses test their software for them, at no charge, *then*
> charge those same individuals full price for the final product.
>
> Notan

genekster
Wed Mar 29 10:23:05 CST 2006

Please understand what is just plainly a fact. As the number of Firefox
users increases so will the number of attacks. Firefox and Opera and so
forth are safer than Internet Explorer only because their use is
limited NOT because the software design is better. I use both Firefox
and Internet Explorer and feel safe with either since I keep everything
updated and in use [speaking of Firewalls, Anti-Virus and Anti-Spyware
programs. What you really illustrate is computer user ignorance and
lack of attention NOT software failure.
If you really want them to be super safe [at least for now], just
switch them over to one of the Linux operating system versions. In
other words, have them avoid Windows and Microsoft all together.
Gene

genekster
Wed Mar 29 10:29:16 CST 2006

Please understand what is just plainly a fact. As the number of Firefox
users increases so will the number of attacks. Firefox and Opera and so
forth are safer than Internet Explorer only because their use is
limited NOT because the software design is better. I use both Firefox
and Internet Explorer and feel safe with either since I keep everything
updated and in use [speaking of Firewalls, Anti-Virus and Anti-Spyware
programs. What you really illustrate is computer user ignorance and
lack of attention NOT software failure.
If you really want them to be super safe [at least for now], just
switch them over to one of the Linux operating system versions. In
other words, have them avoid Windows and Microsoft all together.
Gene

John
Wed Mar 29 10:44:40 CST 2006

Try this Gene:

Open Internet Explorer and Type this in the address bar:

C:\Windows\regedit.exe

Now try the same thing with Firefox and tell us what happens.

For NT/Windows 2000 try: C:\WINNT\regedit.exe

John

genekster@gmail.com wrote:

> Please understand what is just plainly a fact. As the number of Firefox
> users increases so will the number of attacks. Firefox and Opera and so
> forth are safer than Internet Explorer only because their use is
> limited NOT because the software design is better. I use both Firefox
> and Internet Explorer and feel safe with either since I keep everything
> updated and in use [speaking of Firewalls, Anti-Virus and Anti-Spyware
> programs. What you really illustrate is computer user ignorance and
> lack of attention NOT software failure.
> If you really want them to be super safe [at least for now], just
> switch them over to one of the Linux operating system versions. In
> other words, have them avoid Windows and Microsoft all together.
> Gene
>

Phillip
Wed Mar 29 11:13:46 CST 2006

"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:%2329mQA1UGHA.4660@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Try this Gene:
> Open Internet Explorer and Type this in the address bar:
> C:\Windows\regedit.exe

That is irrelavant. That isn't an Internet URL and has nothing to do with
internet security.

Open a command prompt window and type Del *.*
Ack!!! the Command prompt is totally insecure,..we all gotta switch to
Linux!!

Stand out in the middle of the road with your eyes closed. "splat!"
Ack!! Streets are insecure! We have to stop using roads! We need bridges &
tunnels across all roads! Call the tunnels VPN (Very Pedestrian Netork). Of
course some idiot will find a way to fall off the bridge into the street.

--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

John
Wed Mar 29 11:25:41 CST 2006

I'm not saying it's a security risk, the example is just to show that
the software design is significantly different between Firefox and IE.

John

Phillip Windell wrote:
> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:%2329mQA1UGHA.4660@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
>>Try this Gene:
>>Open Internet Explorer and Type this in the address bar:
>>C:\Windows\regedit.exe
>
>
> That is irrelavant. That isn't an Internet URL and has nothing to do with
> internet security.
>
> Open a command prompt window and type Del *.*
> Ack!!! the Command prompt is totally insecure,..we all gotta switch to
> Linux!!
>
> Stand out in the middle of the road with your eyes closed. "splat!"
> Ack!! Streets are insecure! We have to stop using roads! We need bridges &
> tunnels across all roads! Call the tunnels VPN (Very Pedestrian Netork). Of
> course some idiot will find a way to fall off the bridge into the street.
>

Phillip
Wed Mar 29 11:31:06 CST 2006

Ok, that is fine then. No problem. But I did have to have some fun with the
pedestrian falling off the bridge, though :-)

--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:uGTytW1UGHA.4960@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I'm not saying it's a security risk, the example is just to show that
> the software design is significantly different between Firefox and IE.
>
> John
>
> Phillip Windell wrote:
> > "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> > news:%2329mQA1UGHA.4660@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >
> >>Try this Gene:
> >>Open Internet Explorer and Type this in the address bar:
> >>C:\Windows\regedit.exe
> >
> >
> > That is irrelavant. That isn't an Internet URL and has nothing to do
with
> > internet security.
> >
> > Open a command prompt window and type Del *.*
> > Ack!!! the Command prompt is totally insecure,..we all gotta switch to
> > Linux!!
> >
> > Stand out in the middle of the road with your eyes closed. "splat!"
> > Ack!! Streets are insecure! We have to stop using roads! We need bridges
&
> > tunnels across all roads! Call the tunnels VPN (Very Pedestrian Netork).
Of
> > course some idiot will find a way to fall off the bridge into the
street.
> >
>

alun
Sun Apr 09 20:49:13 CDT 2006

In article <1143492316.877738.281180@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
q_q_anonymous@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>what technically are the restrictions on limited users?
>"sometimes they can't install programs"?
>so, the can run an EXE, but not if the EXE puts files on the drive?
>not if the EXE creates a directory?

It's more simple and obvious than that, at least in this context.

Restricted users cannot write to common (i.e. used by everyone) areas of the
system - the C:\ root, the C:\WINDOWS tree, C:\Program Files, C:\Documents and
Settings\All Users and so on.

Restricted users can run executables, and can put files on the drive, but only
in places where they have been given rights to do so - and that doesn't
generally include areas that other users are going to be running programs
from.

For those of you using one account on one machine, it's still worth separating
restricted user from administrator - when you download malware in your
restricted user account, you can usually blow it away by restarting the
machine into the administrator account and running a virus scanner.

The point of the separation of restricted user and administrator, to my mind,
is to define when you are running in a mode "allowed to change the system",
and when you are not.

Alun.
~~~~

[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]
--
Texas Imperial Software | Find us at http://www.wftpd.com or email
23921 57th Ave SE | alun@wftpd.com.
Washington WA 98072-8661 | WFTPD, WFTPD Pro are Windows FTP servers.
Fax/Voice +1(425)807-1787 | Try our NEW client software, WFTPD Explorer.

alun
Sun Apr 09 20:49:18 CDT 2006

In article <QsZVf.63542$9I5.20443@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, Leythos
<void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>We reduced service calls by 30% by switching users from IE to FireFox.

I'm intrigued - did you research to find out why the service calls were
reduced?

Did you increase overall user satisfaction with their browsing experience?

I hear wonderful statistics like that a lot from people trying to sell their
products, and I know that's not what you're trying to do here, but it's
painfully obvious that many of these statistics look at one number as
representative of their entire enterprise.

If you reduced service calls by 30%, and people are just as comfortable with
FireFox as they were with IE, then great.

On the other hand, if you reduced service calls by 30% because people are now
finding it easier to do their job without bothering to open a browser at all,
that's not so good.

Many users in my environment complain bitterly if we add one click to their
browsing experience, or change the location of a button, so perhaps my users
aren't as sophisticated as yours.

Alun.
~~~~

[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]
--
Texas Imperial Software | Find us at http://www.wftpd.com or email
23921 57th Ave SE | alun@wftpd.com.
Washington WA 98072-8661 | WFTPD, WFTPD Pro are Windows FTP servers.
Fax/Voice +1(425)807-1787 | Try our NEW client software, WFTPD Explorer.

alun
Sun Apr 09 20:49:23 CDT 2006

In article <1143649385.783976.228130@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
genekster@gmail.com wrote:
>Please understand what is just plainly a fact. As the number of Firefox
>users increases so will the number of attacks. Firefox and Opera and so
>forth are safer than Internet Explorer only because their use is
>limited NOT because the software design is better. I use both Firefox
>and Internet Explorer and feel safe with either since I keep everything
>updated and in use [speaking of Firewalls, Anti-Virus and Anti-Spyware
>programs. What you really illustrate is computer user ignorance and
>lack of attention NOT software failure.
>If you really want them to be super safe [at least for now], just
>switch them over to one of the Linux operating system versions. In
>other words, have them avoid Windows and Microsoft all together.

The answer, clearly, is for each user to write their own operating system and
applications, then they'll all have bugs, but they'll all have different bugs,
and a virus won't be able to exploit more than a couple of systems before
fizzling out.

Okay, so I'm being sarcastic - just a little.

You can switch to whatever you want, but unless those operating systems or
applications have significantly improved processes (and please, don't spout
the "many eyeballs" drivel back as if it were either improved, or a process),
they too will become exploited, as they gain footing in the market.

So, the end result is that you are better off with an operating system and a
set of applications that you understand well enough to administer, to secure,
to patch, and to rate the risk of continuing to run with existing settings.

Changing horses mid-stream does you no good if the other horse is a bull that
you've never ridden before.

Alun.
~~~~

[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]
--
Texas Imperial Software | Find us at http://www.wftpd.com or email
23921 57th Ave SE | alun@wftpd.com.
Washington WA 98072-8661 | WFTPD, WFTPD Pro are Windows FTP servers.
Fax/Voice +1(425)807-1787 | Try our NEW client software, WFTPD Explorer.

q_q_anonymous
Sun Apr 09 22:07:56 CDT 2006


Alun Jones wrote:
> In article <1143492316.877738.281180@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> q_q_anonymous@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> >what technically are the restrictions on limited users?
> >"sometimes they can't install programs"?
> >so, the can run an EXE, but not if the EXE puts files on the drive?
> >not if the EXE creates a directory?
>
> It's more simple and obvious than that, at least in this context.
>
> Restricted users cannot write to common (i.e. used by everyone) areas of the
> system - the C:\ root, the C:\WINDOWS tree, C:\Program Files, C:\Documents and
> Settings\All Users and so on.
>
> Restricted users can run executables, and can put files on the drive, but only
> in places where they have been given rights to do so - and that doesn't
> generally include areas that other users are going to be running programs
> from.
>
> For those of you using one account on one machine, it's still worth separating
> restricted user from administrator - when you download malware in your
> restricted user account, you can usually blow it away by restarting the
> machine into the administrator account and running