Jaysen wrote: > BUT, their excuse is legit. The OFX download is inherently insecure > from a theoretical perspective. In the real world it holds up fine. > Too bad most of the folks who make these decisions "internet security" > are so detached from the real world that they are unable to see the > stupidity of this position. If we used the same logic to determine is > heart transplant were "secure" then we the medical community would > never have would have tried it.
Why would you say it's insecure? The downloaded file is accessed in the same manner you would access the account, so the same security features should be in place, no? > For the record I am one of those "internet security" types. More on > the implementation and verification then decision making, but close > enough to see both side of the story. I dabble.. > Jaysen -- --------------------------- Jason Frisvold [email protected] --------------------------- "I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." - Douglas Adams --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "No Thirst Software User Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/no-thirst-software?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
