Re: What counts as technically slick?

From: Jim Damato <jdamato@dollargeneral.com>
> Much, much different than QALWOBJRST and QVFYOBJRST:
>
> "With Outlook 2002, Microsoft will compel everyone to adopt the new
security
> measure. The company also makes it nearly impossible for individuals and
> very difficult for corporations to disable the feature, which the company
> says is necessitated by the threat the attachments pose."

I don't see much difference. Let's examine the two quotes you provide.
"The company also makes it nearly impossible for individuals and
very difficult for corporations to disable the feature".
Same thing for IBM:
it is next to impossible to disable the feature. E.g., with QVFYOBJRST,
a system-state program without signature still shows up as a program that
violates the system integrity check, even if you get it restored by
setting QVFYOBJRST = "1". So the feature is not disabled. The
only way to disable the feature is to patch OS/400. Not something
the average Joe should contemplate.

>
> "In fact, Microsoft makes turning off the feature downright difficult.
> Office XP users must physically edit the Windows Registry--an internal
> database of Windows information--to turn off the attachment restriction
> function."

Editing the registry is not much harder than fiddling with system values.

I really don't see any differences. Maybe the biggest similarity is that
the "features" are to *patch* rather than *fix* severe security problems
at the architectural level.


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---