Re: Does this Logon banner look kindof weak to you (i.e. too "non-
- From: Dan <Dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 02:52:00 -0700
<grins>
"Tom [Pepper] Willett" wrote:
Well, for crying out loud, rewrite it to suit the needs..
"Spin" <Spin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6ffci7Fbbl2hU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: Gurus,
:
: Does this Logon banner look kind of weak to you (i.e. too
: "non-threatening")? I mean, if we were to catch AND prosecute hackers,
the
: I fear someone could argue that the below didn't explicitly restrict
: non-authorized users.
:
: THIS <COMPANY NAME> EQUIPMENT IS PROVIDED FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. BY
LOGGING
: ON THE NETWORK, YOU AGREE TO <COMPANY NAME> INFORMATION SYSTEM POLICIES.
IF
: YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION REGARDING PROPER USE OF <COMPANY NAME> I.S
RESOURCES,
: PLEASE CONTACT THE HELPDESK. THANK YOU.
:
: --
: Spin
:
- References:
- Does this Logon banner look kindof weak to you (i.e. too "non-threatening")?
- From: Spin
- Re: Does this Logon banner look kindof weak to you (i.e. too "non-threatening")?
- From: Tom [Pepper] Willett
- Does this Logon banner look kindof weak to you (i.e. too "non-threatening")?
- Prev by Date: Re: Does Microsoft Need a New Source Code for the Future?
- Next by Date: Virtual Private Networking in Windows XP Pro. and in Windows 98 SE
- Previous by thread: Re: Does this Logon banner look kindof weak to you (i.e. too "non-threatening")?
- Next by thread: Re: Antivirus XP 2008
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|