Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: MS signed softwrare privileges
From: bfiero () BETHEL-CT ORG (Bob Fiero)
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:36:06 -0500
At 04:35 PM 2/22/2000 +0000, you wrote:
I would like to clarify some aspects from the Elias post regarding Microsoft signed software.
With this in mind...I really wish that a favorite Win98 utility of mine, 98Lite, would get some more airtime. (http://www.98lite.net) This latest stab in the back of every Windows user by M$ only further drills home the reasons. I firmly believe that IE on a Windows machine, in itself is a bug. (And then some) With the use of 98Lite and three files from Win95, I have a full Win98 system without a trace of IE or Outlook. My system runs faster (measurable with WinBench), a high degree of an increase in stability, and is much much more secure. Despite what Microsoft says, Internet Explorer harms consumers. I really hope for our sake the DOJ gets the job done right this time.
Current thread:
- MS signed softwrare privileges cuartango () TELELINE ES (Feb 22)
- Re: MS signed softwrare privileges Dax Kelson (Feb 22)
- Re: MS signed softwrare privileges Bob Fiero (Feb 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: MS signed softwrare privileges Steven M. Bellovin (Feb 23)
- Re: MS signed softwrare privileges Microsoft Product Security Response Team (Feb 23)
- Re: MS signed softwrare privileges Simple Nomad (Feb 24)
- BID 994, MS00-010 (Site Server Commerce Edition non-validated SQL inputs) Ben Greenbaum (Feb 25)