The issue is that @stake was preaching to the choir. I think it's a safe assumption that nearly everyone on this list knows default Palm security is poor. They may not know how it's poor, just that it is poor, and this advisory may have educated those on how it is poor. To me, this seemed like yelling "Fire" when there is only the risk of a fire. Oh wait, I'm from Chicago, maybe I should heed that warning. So long as there isn't a cow at @stake ;-). -jp- >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/26/00 10:50AM >>> Dave Lippincott wrote: > I'd have a little more respect for a company that doesn't hit > me with a baseball bat before asking me to purchase (or > just use) their product. (IMHO) What product is @stake selling? Although they mention some other products to secure your Palm, I thought @stake was independent and only "sells" their security consulting services, which they don't plug in their advisories. >From http://www.bostonherald.com/bostonherald/life/net01182000.htm posted by Aaron Ardiri: "With @Stake's pledge not to market any specific security product, take kickbacks from vendors or interfere with LOpht's continued posting of security flaws, LOpht will be able to remain the hacker's Consumer Reports, Mudge said." Take a look at http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/company_info/ethics.html. Even though many people on this *development* list know about the lack of security on a PDA, I agree with their statement that most users don't realize their private data is unsecured. That is why they: "Issue public statements, advisories, and the like only in an objective, fact-based and truthful manner..." Joseph Koral [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see http://www.palmos.com/dev/tech/support/forums/ -- For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see http://www.palmos.com/dev/tech/support/forums/
