see Stuart Ballard's excellent argument on this in the general newsgroup in the
thread:
"Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! You knowyouwant this feature!"
Ian Davey wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Here are my arguments for this important feature:
> >===============================
> >.... there is no absolute need to encrypt the actual files in the
> >profile's directory.
>
> >That would be overkill. All we need is to be able to deter someone from
> >accidentally entering our profile by hitting ENTER in the profile
> >manager. It
> >will also deter 99% of people who want to take a "peek" at our mail and
> >bookmarks. It would be the same feature as in NC 4.5 - a simple password
> >that
> >permits entry into ones profile.
>
> The problem is, should Mozilla be released with this feature and no local
> encryption it would considered a joke. It offers no security at all,
> considering you can just open the files locally. Linux already offers this
> level of security anyway, each user has their own seperate account that is
> accessible only to them.
>
> What you are suggesting doesn't need to be implemented with a password, it's
> more like a dialog box saying "Are you sure you want to open this profile?
> Y/N".
>
> I seriously can't see what use this would be, especially when this kind of
> security should come as a basic part of any operating system. You can even
> achieve the same with Win95 if each user has their own Win95 login, you'll be
> able to read each others local files, but you only get to choose from your own
> collection of profiles. So this isn't really that useful a feature, merely
> adding bloat and more options to the already slightly crowded preferences.
>
> ian.
>
> \ /
> (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
> /(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
> | |
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
