if the firewall is enabled to block either the site or wmf files, it
*should* protect the user. Until a tricky script kiddie disciovers a way to
get around it.
Which is more risky? Both are equal once the exploit reaches the computer -
it just depends on the current favorite method of transmission and how good
your gateway spam and virus scanner is. Which are you more likely to
encounter? Again it depends on your surfing habits, firewall, and spam
scanner. :)
On 1/3/06, Stephen Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks, Bernie.... and a firewall wouldn't protect the visitor from an
> infection?
> My understanding is that infection can also occur from attachments and
> that AV
> programs are just being developed to identify/protect users. I wonder
> where the
> greatest risks lies - visits to web sites which have been
> designed/inadvertently
> take advantage of the wmf vulnerability or by the transmission/exchange of
> infected
> attachments.
>
--
Diane Poremsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
----------------------------------------
To Change your email Address for this list, send the following message:
CHANGE WIN-HOME your_old_address your_new_address
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Note carefully that both old and new addresses are required.
