Why are you assuming that most users are in a corporate network environment
("assuming the admin knows what they're doing")? Also, suggesting PGP as a solution
completely misses the reality of most users not being able to install/configure
this complex software (I am an "advanced" user and unistalled PGP because it is way
too cumbersome to configure.
Password protected profiles is targeted at the majority of users who want
convenience and transparency where possible. Most people don't even want a
technically optimal solution. Or can you explain why most people pay big bucks for
win9x when they could have Linux for free?
Adam Lock wrote:
> Peter Lairo wrote:
> >
> > It is an optimal solution if you define optimal to be the best possible cost
> > versus benefit. Most users use win9x which has virtually NO "Permission
> > management". Anyhow, the password would be far from not doing "anything". 99%
> > of unintentional or novice snooping is highly significant.
>
> As I mentioned in the bug, Win95/98/Me *can* secure files by using
> something like PGP Disk. I'd trust this approach a lot more than to
> protect the profile with some half-baked glass-door security policy as
> the bug report suggests. Practically every other platform can protect
> the profile with file permissions so there should be no issue there
> assuming the admin knows what they're doing.
>
> --
> Adam Lock - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
