by -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>: >Any way I can make it so that my users CAN NOT run the policy editor.
>: No.
>: The fact that Win95 is insecure is not a problem. All desktop operating
>: systems are insecure -- MacOS, OS/2, Windows 3. The problem is that
>: Microsoft says that Win95 has decent security, and even otherwise savvy
>: people like you believe this. This is called "snake oil." You jump
>: through hoops trying to set up all sorts of traps, while in reality
>: anyone who reads any computing magazine or the newsgroups can "break in"
>: in ten seconds. See page 113 of the November 13 InfoWorld,
>: http://www.infoworld.com/.
>With respect, I expect UN*Xs to be (nearly) 'secure'... like linux that
>costs *NOTHING* :)
>I'd guess the linux MS Windows emulator is pretty secure too :)
>Pity Linus doesn't fork for MS :(
operating systems, though it would be nice if they were.
This leaf probably belongs in advocacy. If the yahoos in advocacy are
intrigued, a few earlier articles in this thread and other interesting
things are on gopher://quixote.stanford.edu/1m/win95netbugs.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMK1MWo3DXUbM57SdAQE1hgP/fG2dFTy7gYKquoIG5FX/X/UvMZLCnGp7
50knO4a5pHWYSl4p13HmTUpaTJoqSpc651FajykaI1o/5j7oM3Wg7v8iFBGfOVXv
foYHpg5RdMV0ucsKhYIy50HqCZ0/Q6eOffWYtPUJsI3fmqTJqfiNlf3q8kJneZsm
YL+ZB+KcAoU=
=oMl0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
moderator of the win95netbugs list
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/win95netbugs/faq.html