[TriLUG] How not to run a network
william at trilug.org
Wed Feb 16 10:43:24 EST 2005
I've been having a rough morning, so glad to know it wasn't one more thing
Chalk it all up to frustration on my part.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Dan Monjar wrote:
> William Sutton wrote:
> > The points are:
> > - If I can rename it anyway, then all that does is provide a slightly
> > higher barrier to the stupidity level, meaning I can still send some luser
> > a file labeled "your program.dat", tell them that it is useful in some way
> > or other, and have them wipe out their system.
> > - Likewise, it makes it a serious pain in my backside to send them
> > legitimate programs (the more so since the IS folks took away IM file
> > transfer).
> > In other words, it puts a crimp in my ability to do my job and doesn't (as
> > far as I can analyze the situation) do anything beyond stop Outlook from
> > being stupid. Frankly that's not a sufficient reason to me.
> > Of course the fact that I have to use Windows to do UNIX development work
> > is a whole other sore point...
> > I should also like to point out that can/can't and will/won't are very
> > different things. I agree that "can't" is probably indicative that
> > someone shouldn't be using a computer. "won't" is debatable. "doesn't
> > want to" is a whole other option that you left out in what sounded like a
> > targeted attack :)
> no, certainly not targeted at you. Apologies if it seemed so.
> The policy won't stopped a "targeted" attack. If I trust you and you
> abuse that trust by sending me something bad then I am screwed. But the
> policy does stop the millions of messages being spewed out by infected
> I honestly cannot see the "serious pain" aspect of this. Copy prog.exe
> to prog.exx and mail it to me. When I detach the file I do a save as to
> prog.exe. where's the pain?
8003 Benaroya Ln B-7
Huntsville AL 35802
More information about the TriLUG