Re: [in] Re: [Full-Disclosure] IE is just as safe as FireFox

From: devis (devis_at_easynix.net)
Date: 11/19/04

  • Next message: Danny: "[Full-Disclosure] Why is IRC still around?" 
    Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:10:21 +0100

    This message is primarily destined to all MS trolls, no matter their
    levels, and i can see so many in this list that i am happy to target a
    large audience.

    Please run some unix or at least read about the unix permission system,
    and lets pray god this sheds some light in your mono cultured brains.
    Here are the relevant points:

    1) Despite recent ameliorations of MS ( multi user finally, permissions
    ... ) and some effort at making the system more secure, something very
    important is still left out: The first default user of the MS computer
    is made an administrator. This comes down to giving uid0 to ur first
    unix user. Unix does NOT do that. It requieres you to use su and become
    root ( administrator ) after proper credentials submission ( password ).
    The first user is NOT and administrator, and any recent Unix
    documentation will insist on the danger of running as root(admin). Unix
    keeps the admin account well separated from the user account, which MS
    DOESN'T, despite all wrong arguments i read on this list. VERY BAD
    practice generally. So its user friendly, as the user has admin rights
    and can therefore install and remove software and change major
    configuration. Majority of users don't and will never know there is an
    'administrator' user that hides from their eyes.
    This little detail that apparently Ms people can't 'understand' is a
    huge step. Please install a proper unix, create 2 accounts and try to
    read the home directory of the second user from the first.

    2) "After all, they don;t need to know" . " You're on a need to know
    basis job"
    Do MS really think the users are stupid ? Do understanding different
    IDs/ roles / accounts on a computer that much of a tough message to pass
    to the end user ? Isn't security important and supposedly the goal of
    recent MS developpements ? If they really did target security, their
    efforts will have been into making the user understand that he should be
    admin to install programs, and a non priviledged user to surf the web.
    IS that that hard to understand ? And that much hidden into high IT
    security professionnal unreachable knowledge ? I don;t think so. Doesn't
    a company such as MS has enough ressources to make that a priority and
    educate the users ? Off course it has. Just not very 'commercially'
    friendly as if user then understand roles, it might requires less Anti
    virus, personnal firewall and other bull*** FUD's scareware ( Yes its
    scareware, and it is the best selling software category OF ALL times of
    software history ).

    This is why, Firefox being independant from this OS that carries 60 of
    its code base as being legacy code for older system hardware and
    backward compatibility, is likely more secure than the in house
    integrated application. Now if u are running Firefox as an administrator
    .....don't be surprised if something happens. Don;t blame the software,
    but your poor security practices.

    Lets not hide from ourselves whats needed from MS to reach modern world
    security:
    a complete rewrite, and a ditch of old Dos base and the 20 years old
    legacy code.

    Hopes that clears things.

    Rafel Ivgi, The-Insider wrote:

    >Firefox is not intgrated to the OS, because it doesn't have an OS.
    >Its just a trimmed Mozilla for windows..
    >However Mozilla in Linux is integrated at some level...so they are just the
    >same as I.E.
    >
    >
    >Rafel Ivgi, The-Insider
    >Security Consultant
    >Malicious Code Research Center (MCRC)
    >Finjan Software LTD
    >E-mail: rivgi@Finjan.com
    >---------------------------------
    >Prevention is the best cure!
    >----- Original Message -----
    >From: "john morris" <me.morris@gmail.com>
    >To: <full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com>
    >Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 3:34 PM
    >Subject: Re: [in] Re: [Full-Disclosure] IE is just as safe as FireFox
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>Firefox avoids several fundamental design flaws of IE, in that:
    >>
    >>-Firefox is not integrated into Windows, and thus closes holes
    >>allowing access to the OS.
    >>
    >>-Firefox does not support ActiveX JavaVM or VBScript, three Microsoft
    >>proprietary technologies that are responsible for many security holes.
    >>
    >>-Firefox does not allow for the invasion of your system by adware and
    >>spyware just by visiting a website.
    >>
    >>(FROM LINKS TO LINKS WE ARE ALL LINKED)
    >>
    >>cheersssss.....
    >>
    >>morris
    >>
    >>_______________________________________________
    >>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    >>Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >-----------------------------------------------
    >This message was scanned for malicious content and viruses by Finjan Internet Vital Security 1Box(tm)
    >
    >_______________________________________________
    >Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    >Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
    >
    >
    >
    >

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

  • Next message: Danny: "[Full-Disclosure] Why is IRC still around?"