On 10/15/07, Jeff Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You misapply the eWeek story. EWeek is comparing different settings of > > the same insecure OS. No one here is proposing that some settings are > > less dangerous than others. You don't make a good case for your > > position by trying to change the topic. > > The only person trying to change the subject is you. It only puts meat > behind what I've been saying for a long time now: Windows is secure when > not running as admin, especially as the lowest privilege user. >
1. That is so clearly untrue. And you can read any security reviews of any kind from any source, except Microsoft or those paid by Microsoft, to verify it. 2. Clearly making the user something other than admin is more secure. That's why other OS have done this from the beginning and Microsoft has started to consider it lately with Vista. 3. The eWeek story doesn't even claim that Microsoft Windows is secure, so I don't see where you are reading that in between the lines. -- John DeCarlo, My Views Are My Own ************************************************************************ * ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <== * ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived ************************************************************************
