Wrong-headed. Perhaps correct if speaking for an organization, where a sysadmin will make these decisions for the users, but even then it is a stretch.
Yes, users are dangerous. But they are also ultimately responsible for the security of their machine, nobody else.
Personally, I think it is insane to include these sort of features in MS Word, not just dangerous. It is the very worst example of how grotesque and distorted and bloated and driven off-track from original purpose that a marketing-driven product design can achieve. But hey, MS has never ever been known for the quality of its design or implementation.
That said, the Unix security model would limit the damage done should a user run malware he received from elsewhere, and then _knowkingly execute, only with his permission, on his own box, to those files and data that he is authorized to see and write.
The most important part of this story to my mind is that Kaspersky Lab is once again making unsubstantiated claims of vulnerabilities where none exist. It's as if there is a string tied between Kaspersky Lab and MS public relations. Big new vulnerability in MS Word found related to its insane design? We'll fix that. Let's get some stories floating around about how Linux is just as vulnerable, that we can continue to feed the lie that the only difference in security between the two is their popularity.
And the tres duh press, as always, laps it up like puppies drinking warm milk from a saucer.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Users making security decisions is dangerous.
Posted by: Joe Barr on June 03, 2006 09:21 PMWrong-headed. Perhaps correct if speaking for an organization, where a sysadmin will make these decisions for the users, but even then it is a stretch.
Yes, users are dangerous. But they are also ultimately responsible for the security of their machine, nobody else.
Personally, I think it is insane to include these sort of features in MS Word, not just dangerous. It is the very worst example of how grotesque and distorted and bloated and driven off-track from original purpose that a marketing-driven product design can achieve. But hey, MS has never ever been known for the quality of its design or implementation.
That said, the Unix security model would limit the damage done should a user run malware he received from elsewhere, and then _knowkingly execute, only with his permission, on his own box, to those files and data that he is authorized to see and write.
The most important part of this story to my mind is that Kaspersky Lab is once again making unsubstantiated claims of vulnerabilities where none exist. It's as if there is a string tied between Kaspersky Lab and MS public relations. Big new vulnerability in MS Word found related to its insane design? We'll fix that. Let's get some stories floating around about how Linux is just as vulnerable, that we can continue to feed the lie that the only difference in security between the two is their popularity.
And the tres duh press, as always, laps it up like puppies drinking warm milk from a saucer.
#