General discussion

Locked

"Over-Draconian" browser security??

By Stephen Howard-Sarin ·
Jason actually said that Vista's IE7 security feautures might be "over-Draconian"! Aside from the amusing invention of a term, do you really think that it's possible Microsoft will ship something that's locked down too tight?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

37 total posts (Page 2 of 4)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Yep, props for your browser settings

by jasonhiner Moderator In reply to thanks...

There ain't much that's gonna get through when you lock down your browser like that. That's seriously hard core.

Do you ever run into situations where there's something you need or want to view but can't because of your settings? What do you do when that happens?

Collapse -

hasn't happened yet.

by Jaqui In reply to Yep, props for your brows ...

since I don't want multimedia content that's the only thing I never see. And don't miss at all.

When I hit a site that requires functionality in the browser I don't support, I leave the site.
making note of domain name and looking up the company through whois.
CEO's just love getting phone calls from people hearing that their flash / shockwave /javascript / activex powered website has cost them more money in lost business than they have made, that you are only calling to congradulate them on choosing to drive customers away from their website by implementing it, and I'll be taking my business elsewhere.

Collapse -

Depends upon what you mean by security

by Deadly Ernest In reply to "Over-Draconian" browser ...

One of the long term Microsoft goals is the process that they have, in the past, called Palladium and Trusted Computing. This is a security concept whereby the computer, the network, and the Internet will NOT allow any connection with a computer that is not certified as being correct via the control mechanisms in place. Part of that control being a double check of the software being legally licenced and current. It is NOT beyond the realms of expectation that MS would incorporate a process in their browser that would limit its ability to view sites to those that are registered with it somehow.

I do not know what is in IE7 as I gave up using it years ago. First I went to Avant Browser which sits over the IE engine as a new interface and security screen. Now I use Firefox as I find it easier to set up and use. Also it is harder for things to hijack than IE is.

Collapse -

It will be annoying, but those things protect you

by georgeou In reply to "Over-Draconian" browser ...

IE7 on Vista protects people against the most dangerous aspect of computing; humans. If you accidentally do something you shouldn?t be doing, it will at least warn you now. You can still choose to infect yourself, but at least you?ve been giving two warnings that you can choose to ignore. Under most circumstances, you shouldn?t be seeing any warning boxes. If you are seeing a lot of warning boxes, you?re probably doing a lot of things you shouldn?t be doing.

In the case of a flaw in IE7 under Vista, it will prevent a hijacked IE7 from accessing your system files or more importantly your user files. After all, your kid?s photos are more important than your Windows system directory because you can always reinstall Windows, you can?t retake pictures. In a recent Apple Mac OS X flaw, the hijacked browser session is prevented from accessing your system files which is better than Windows XP, but it let?s the exploit get wide open access to all of your user files. IE7 on Vista will move Microsoft Windows XP and IE6 from least secure to the most secure Desktop operating system. Is it going to be perfect, certainly not but it does make the best effort of any modern Desktop OS and Browser.

Collapse -

You think so?

by apotheon In reply to It will be annoying, but ...

Tell me about the failings in, for instance, a desktop Linux install that makes it compare unfavorably with Windows using IE7.

Collapse -

Apotheon Right Again!

by rkuhn In reply to You think so?

I'm sure Linux is probably more secure.

Too bad few want to use Linux, few comparably speaking are currently using it, there are too many distros, it is not an OS for the casual user, etc etc etc.

Jesus, we've been down this road before.

Collapse -

Yes, we have.

by apotheon In reply to Apotheon Right Again!

Every time we go down this road, you start out with something reasonable, and immediately spin off into the FU

1. "There are too many distros!"
2. "[Linux is] not an OS for the casual user!"

1. That's asinine. Too many for what? It's called "competition", and having your desktop market sewn up by a single vendor is in no way a positive state of affairs.

2. It is. That's part of the beauty of it: depending on which distribution you choose and how it's configured, it can be just about any kind of OS you want it to be, including an OS for the casual user.

You say: "Jesus, we've been down this road before."
I say: While I'm flattered by the comparison, I am not Him.

Collapse -

Yes, he is.

by Absolutely In reply to Apotheon Right Again!

I don't love silicon just because it uses electricity. I'm not a computer enthusiast, eager to know everything that can be done with a bit or computing logic. Linux is easy enough, for anybody courageous enough to ignore FUD and insert a different disc into the CD-ROM drive. The fact that writing one's own programs is common is an added opportunity, not a requirement.

Collapse -

Desktop Linux

by georgeou In reply to You think so?

First of all, I didn't mention Desktop Linux. I'm counting Windows and Mac. Linux runs great as a Server operating system, but it's arguable if it is mature enough to serve as a desktop OS. Some would argue it is, some would argue not though I'm sure you would fall in to the former category.

If you were using Desktop Linux, I believe you would have to manually set up something to run the browser under different user permissions as the user. If I?m wrong about that, I'm sure you'll be more than glad to correct me.

Collapse -

user permissions..desktop linux

by Jaqui In reply to Desktop Linux

add user, add group, assign user to group.
in my case, user = jaqui
group = jaqui
the only thing I cannot access by default now is system admin tools, all applications required for normal use are available.

there is sudo for gui access as jaqui to system admin tools
su on cli to access them
or just use a second tty to login as the admin and perform needed tasks.
I actually prefer to work with the latter, that way I have to check what needs to be done before gaining the access level that can damage the system, so my time as the admin on a login session is minimal.

Back to Community Forum
37 total posts (Page 2 of 4)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums