Paul wrote:
On 8/15/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chad wrote:
> Thought you might want to check this out. I don't remember seeing
this on
> any of the lists.
The initial announcement was a couple of weeks ago. The most recent
gives a list of "security flaws" in OOo on _Windows_.
People who practice "safe computing" don't have anything to worry about.
People who happily let all and sundry run on their machine will have a
security problem.
xan
jonathon
> Its a little unclear from the article, but are they saying that the
> "maliciously encoded macros and templates" are M$ formatted files or
> ODF formatted files (using OOo owns macro language)... And what does
> "compromise systems running the open-source software" - are we talking
> taking over admin privileges, crashing the system, remote exploits,
> what?? (can't read French so can't get answers from linked
> presentation either).
>
> I still think, as I did last time there was a security "scare" with
> OOo, that if you open documents from unknown sources and let all the
> macro's run unhindered then you deserve what you get...
>
> Bit of a non-event in my book.
>
> /paul
>
>
I have seen a couple of translations on this and one point they bring up
is the ability to allow macros to run in a directory. I have not seen
this feature in the version that I am running. Every time a macro wants
to run on my machine I am prompted to allow it to run or not.
As one rebuttle stated, many of the issues brought out in the report
have already been addressed. Now if we could say that for MS Office.
--
Robin Laing
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
