RTP-area local music and culture

[Margaret Campbell <margaretc AT gmail.com>]

If you are still worried about the new Windows hole, you might want to take
a look at SiliconValley's
take<http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2006/01/microsofts_deci.html>on
it.

Apparently, you should install the non-MS fix....


On 1/2/06, Chris Calloway <ifoufo AT yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I think I have to disagree with Chris
>
> fair enough. but...
>
> > Go here & read the "trustworthy
> computing" entry (a couple of entries down on the front page):
> http://isc.sans.org/
>
> "Please, trust us"
>
> actually, that's the antithesis of trusted computing.
>
> all that has to be done is to let us see the source code of the patch
> before running it, and allow us to compile it ourselves.
>
> i know that's not what ms does. but ms is a primary source for ms patches.
> and ms provides a secure delivery mechanism for patches.
>
> "Acceptable or not, folks, you have to trust someone in this situation."
>
> no, we don't have to. windows users can not browse the internet for
> awhile. and windows users can turn off viewing email as rendered html for
> awhile.
>
> the ics statements simply aren't talking in a trustworthy manner. i don't
> know why. it would be simple to do so. i'm not saying it is, but it sounds
> like a test to find out if people know what trustworthy computing actually
> means.
>
> "To the best of my knowledge, over the past 5 years, this rag-tag group of
> volunteers hasn't asked for your trust: we've earned it."
>
> see, that statement is *exactly* how social engineers make their appeals.
> and that rag-tag group of volunteers should be the first to know that.
>
> > this
> one at least requires you to actively fire up a browser/mailreader and
> engage in risky internet usage.
>
> risky as in visiting knoppix-std.org?
>
> i agree previous threats have been worse. this one *may* have an
> unnecessarily larger effect, however, due to the security expert obfuscation
> going on. i don't understand why that is happening.
>
> > Linux is a lot of fun if you're the kind of person who likes to spend 3
> hours trying to get your machine to print to your home printer, even
> though it was working the week before, and you didn't knowingly change
> anything.
>
> agreed, it's a nightmare. welcome to my nightmare. linux/bsd/'nix may be
> the single biggest impediment i have in my job to getting things done in a
> timely manner. and i don't dare use anything else on servers. i have no
> choice about running windows on a least one desktop machine at any given
> time, though. not because there aren't alternatives. but because i have to
> support people who won't accept the alternatives.
>
> > Windows just
> isn't challenging enough for me anymore.
>
> it will be plenty challenging this week for a lot of people. :)
>
> i guess i have challenges enough already. i want the challenge of
> developing my own software, not slogging through getting somebody else's
> software to work. i develop software because i have problems to solve with
> software that don't involve the software itself. most of the time, though, i
> have to pay inordinate amounts of attention to the software and not the
> problem.
>
> i just want to add that nothing i wrote above should be construed as an
> attempt on my part to be pissy. i respect ross's respect for isc and his
> admonitions on how to protect yourself. i respect todd asking us how to
> protect ourselves.
>
> 3
>
> -- ch-scene: the list that mirrors alt.music.chapel-hill --
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ch-scene
>



--
--Margaret Campbell