And much more effective in a distributed company than a dunce cap ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE MCT Senior Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA http://www.peregrine.com
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 9:09 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > potentially unsafe > > > Conformity by humiliation. Works like a champ. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:07 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > potentially unsafe > > > Someone else on this list used to post the peoples names on the main > Intranet page. It only took one major outbreak to fix that behavior. > > Roger > ------------------------------------------------------ > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE MCT > Senior Systems Administrator > Peregrine Systems > Atlanta, GA > http://www.peregrine.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eric Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 7:12 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: Outlook blocked access to the following > > potentially unsafe > > > > > > At my last job we proposed a security policy whereby any user > > who executed a > > virus and infected the system would have to wear a dunce cap > > and a T-Shirt > > that says "I'm the idiot who opened the virus" for a week. > > It was almost > > made policy. Damn hippies shot it down... > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mike Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:00 PM > > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > > potentially unsafe > > > > > > Exactly why MS has to create patches like this particular one. > > > > Morons. > > > > What would be cool is if you could put a lock on their mail > > box so that > > when they open up Outlook there is an administrative message staring > > them in the face. Before they could open any email they > would have to > > click OK and then retype what the administrative message > was in a box > > exactly as it was. If they don't get it right, they are > > prompted again. > > If a new virus goes around the admin could put a lock on > all mailboxes > > until they perform those steps. > > > > Kind like yelling at your kids. You tell them something and > then you > > make them repeat it back to you so that you realize they heard what > > you said. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:49 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > > potentially unsafe > > > > > > Users will open anything regardless of what you say. > > I remember ILOVEYOU, and a user. I had sent out emails all day long > > warning about this virus that had penetrated to a few > machines before > > we had the DAT file for it. Anyhow, after an email an hour > all day, I > > was talking to this guy about it at his desk. As I am talking, he > > is looking > > at mail and opens it right then! He had a laptop, and I ripped the > > PCCard NIC out, but too late. He just stood there and stared > > at me, as I > > turned and ran for my servers. Too late. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Mike Carlson > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:45 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > > potentially unsafe > > > > > > Yes you should and you do. Edit the registry. > > > > No reason to blame MS for stupid people that open every > > "clickmetof*ckupyourcomputer.exe" they get in an email. > > > > When are people going to take responsibility for stupid > stuff they do > > and their own incompetence. > > > > If you don't know how to drive are you going to blame the > person that > > runs into you? If you don't know how to use a shotgun are going to > > blame the person who sold you the gun when you blow your arm off? > > > > I am amazed all the time when we get new hires, that cant > > barely survive > > without a sign on their desk reminding them to inhale and exhale > > otherwise they will die, and throw them in front of a > > computer and they > > have no clue. We had to send a tech down to help a person log > > into their > > computer. They didn't know how to press CTRL+ALT+DEL. The > keyboard had > > CTL instead of CTRL on the key. > > > > Or the other fabulous ones that reboot their computer and > > call us saying > > their hard drive crashed when all they did was leave a non-bootable > > floppy disk in the drive. > > > > People need to take responsibility and face up to the fact > > that they are > > computer illiterate or just plain dense when it comes to > some of this > > stuff. > > > > Because people think they are computer geniuses even though they > > couldn't tell the difference between \ and / companies like > Microsoft > > have to put in their application things like this patch. > > > > My wife is a prime example. She will be the first to admint > > she doesn't > > know anything about computers ecept for the applications > that she uses > > all the time. If I am logged into my computer and she needs > > it, she logs > > into her own account because I have setup her account so > that she cant > > do any damage to the computer. > > > > Don't blame MS. They are just responding to all the crap they > > got about > > not being secure. If people wouldn't click on every stupid > theng they > > get via email, MS would ahev NEVER released that patch. > > > > There is no one to blame but morons. > > > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wynkoop, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:11 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > > potentially unsafe > > > > > > I should have the option to block attachments or not! > > > > Explanation: > > Some of us (those who work for universities with stupid > staff members > > and arrogant professors) don't have the option of blocking > attachments > > > (Gosh forbid we infringe on anyone's "academic freedom"). That is > > unless we wish to endure a never ending reign of sh*t from above. > > Instead we have to work around the vunerabilities found in > things such > > > as VBS, EXE, and COM files (which we have successfully done I might > > add). We managed to succesfully ward off NIMDA, Code Red, > and a rash > > of other recent viruses without changing what users can and > > can't do (see, > > it can be done). Now outlook just gives my users one more reason to > > jump down my throat when something doesn't work. Thanks MicroShaft. > > > > John > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:45 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > > potentially unsafe > > > > > > Even allowing your mail system to pass .EXE and .COM files is > > a mistake. > > You should thank MS for making OL block those types of > files since you > > don't. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 11:41 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > > potentially unsafe > > > > > > >>>>For such a typically minor patch? > > Where did you get that idea? > > > > The Patch didnt break Outlook, your lack of preparation did. > > > > Over and Out. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Shawn Connelly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:30 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > > potentially unsafe > > > > > > You know, it astounds me that so many IT people are blind to > > Microsoft's > > incompetence! > > > > BTW Mike, your 'car head light' analogy is not even > relevant. A more > > apt analogy would refer to the Ford Pinto's with the exploding gas > > tanks. Sure the user could be mindful of driving only on > roads with > > no other vehicles, thereby preventing a back-end collision. The > > 'solution' > > in service patch 2 could be likened to Microsoft removing > the gas tank > > altogether. > > > > First, I read about 70% of the material related to this > service patch. > > > There are about 20 pages of material relating to this patch > and since > > I run a dept. with over 50 systems and 6 servers ON MY OWN > (no help, > > not even support contracts), I really don't have the time (nor is > > it humanly > > possible) to read every patch/update/security document produced by > > Microsoft alone (to say nothing about the 50+ other products I look > > after). No, I'm not whining!! > > > > Simply put, this patch broke Outlook!! An email program > that cannot > > accept > > .com and .exe's is damaged! Yes, yes, I know there are > other methods > > of > > receiving files (such as zip'ed) but the point is that no > other email > > program such as Eudora, Groupwise, Netscape block these > attachments. > > All Microsoft had to do was to either disable the dangerous > > capabilities of > > .asp,.vbs, (et al) code OR entirely block access to this > code. IT WAS > > AS SIMPLE AS THAT!! > > > > Geezz, what's with some of you in this (supposed to be?) friendly > > discussions group? > > > > I sent a message asking about this (yes, I admit it was > > confrontational) > > and I read return responses basically calling me an idiot > > based on inane > > assumptions! > > > > Of course, I had to risk installing this patch because the > risk of an > > Outlook-based virus outbreak out weighted the potential > annoyance of > > breaking Outlook. BTW, I have never experienced a virus > outbreak in > > the 6 years I've been with this company because of my pro-active > > stance on these issues. > > > > Message to Lori: > > "Project Plan and Test Plan Results"??? For such a typically minor > > patch? How many IT people do you have in your organization? > The last > > time I had the time to do anything like that was in 98/99 > for Y2K. I'm > > > beginning to feel very small; am I the only IT person in this > > discussion group with an IT budget less than my wage? > > > > Message to Andy David: > > See note about inane assumptions. > > > > Over and out, > > Shawn > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Exchange Discussions digest [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: November 6, 2001 1:00 AM > > To: exchange digest recipients > > Subject: exchange digest: November 05, 2001 > > > > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > > potentially unsafe > > at tach ments > > From: "Mike Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 09:38:28 -0600 > > X-Message-Number: 38 > > > > It amazes me when people complain about this patch. First > developers > > wanted the ability to autmoate/script everything to > customize it for > > their environment. "Give us the tools! Give us the ability!" Well > > Microsoft did. Now that users and administrators are too > stupid, yes I > > > mean stupid, to be mindful of attachments and security issues, they > > now blame Microsoft for releasing a buggy product. Its like > blaming a > > car company, when you get rear-ended, for your brake lights > being out. > > > > Similarily, the current crap about IIS being insecure is the same > > situation. If the system administrators would apply patches > when they > > come out, and properly configure the machines, they would have no > > problems. > > > > When a company like Microsoft has to write into their application a > > security process that the administrators should do themselves, you > > have no one to blame but moron users and incompetant administrators. > > > > No one in our company had the ability, except admins, to open .exe, > > .vbs, wsh files from Outlook before they released the > patch. We have a > > > policy that everything must be in .zip or other compressed archive > > format like .sit or .tar. This way we can limit the > vulnerabilites we > > have. > > > > People want it easy to use and administer. With that comes > > responsibility. If you cant take responsibility, you do not deserve > > your job. > > > > BTW: A company I do development for, fired 2 administrators > > because they > > got hacked by Code Red and Nimda. They were too stupid and > incompetent > > to install patches that had been out for quite a long time. > > > > So again, blame stupid users and lazy administrators, not Microsoft. > > > > Also, if you blindly install patches and fixes without reading the > > documentation first and then testing the patches, your job > should be > > on shakey ground. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20 > > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 8:50 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > > potentially unsafe > > at tach ments > > > > > > Sue Mosher and I (and so many many others) made it a > personal goal to > > speak ill of this patch whenever possible. In fact, we > only refer to > > it as the Hell Patch. Not sure who coined that one but it does fit. > > > > So Shawn, can you show me your Project Plan and Test Plan > Results for > > the application of this patch in a production environment? > Or did you > > > just blindly apply it and are now here to get your money back? > > > > No soup for you. NEXT!! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:16 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following > > potentially unsafe > > at tach ments > > > > > > Ahhh, I love it.. > > If you had bothered to do even a little research before > > applying the SP > > you would have known this... But of course, it's Microsoft's fault. > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
