<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Protect your systems from the dangers of web browsing ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-348516]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-348516/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-21T21:33:24-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Actually, these and similar &amp;quot;corporate policies&amp;quot;]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-348516-3501100]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[are not meant to protect &quot;users&quot;, rather they are in place to protectthe company from possible litigation due to security breach, lossof company IP or in cases involving terminated employees as a cause for dismissal.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-348516-3501100]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[wizard57m-cnet]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:53:36 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Nope.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-348516-3500920]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[That wasn't my current employer, anyway.Although, when I say their whitelist was &quot;restrictive&quot;, I mean they had it locked down quite a bit.  No Yahoo or Google (although MSN.com worked -- go figure), most sites were either internal to the client (i.e. available to the client's employees but not their customers), &amp; some vendors' websites to get troubleshooting information (but not all of them, either).]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-348516-3500920]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[spdragoo@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:25:12 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The point is that the sites on your whitelist are the infected ones]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-348516-3500805]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Malware authors target the most trusted sites in order to reach people like you. I hope you aren't using McAffee...http://news.techworld.com/security/3267396/mcafee-website-full-of-security-holes-says-white-hat-hacker/]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-348516-3500805]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Spitfire_Sysop]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:03:31 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Great article]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-348516-3500797]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I mistyped a common URL just last night. I transposed two characters. I was met with a blank white screen and an instant pop-up from Avast anti-virus that said it had just blocked a trojan horse. Thanks Avast!Here's the strange part: I run NoScript on an up to date FireFox. There is no way that this mistyped URL was added to the whitelist. I was under the impression that most code that would force execution of a Trojan horse required client side scripting to be active; something that NoScript usually manages very well. In this case I was saved by having multiple layers of security.I believe that if I was the first person to stumble upon this attack site that I could have been infected due to a lack of signature for Avast!Due to the reactive nature of most security products somebody must get infected before the threat can be neutralized. This means that nobody is safe and if you are the target of new malware you will always need behavior analysis to successfully identify the questionable code.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-348516-3500797]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Spitfire_Sysop]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:58:17 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[One slight quibble]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-348516-3500775]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;Our organization has clear and strict policies in place that prevent inappropriate internet usage.&quot;I think the disagreement on this might depend on how you're defining &quot;policies&quot;.  If you mean, &quot;Here are the rules for using Internet access, anyone breaking them will be punished&quot;, then yes, you will still have vulnerabilities.On the other hand, I've worked for employers that, as part of their Internet policy, employed strict &quot;whitelist&quot; protocols:  if the website wasn't on the whitelist, you couldn't access it from work.  Since the whitelist didn't include websites to download &quot;alternatives&quot; to IE, &amp; the floppy drives &amp; USB ports were disabled, that meant a much higher level of control over Internet access.  It wasn't 100% perfect, but it was pretty high.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-348516-3500775]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[spdragoo@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:37:18 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

