On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 06:52:54 +0000, "Brian J. Beesley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Other people have mentioned the possibility of "automatically" disengaging or >updating the client. I have very serious reservations about this; the problem >is that it leaves the system hosting the client wide open to use of the >mechanism for malicious purposes, e.g. "updating" to a client containing a >trojan or switching it to a different project, or attacking a user by >disengaging his systems so that you can leapfrog him in the league tables. I am aware of several linux distributions which do the exact same thing (in fact I am not aware of any widely popular one which doesn't). However, they require the user to initiate the update. Would you be more comfortable if that was done, as well as some sort of signature on the update files? Nathan _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
