Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?
From: Paul Schmehl <pauls () utdallas edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:48:08 -0600
--On Friday, March 19, 2004 10:15:06 AM +0000 Random Letters <randomisedletters () hotmail com> wrote:
<opinion> The only way to 100% secure a Windows client machine is to take it away from the user and lock it in a cupboard.
[snipped a bunch in the middle.
If Windows was 100% secure, why bother at all with patches and virus updates?
Write this on the chalkboard 100 times. "Nothing is 100% secure! Nothing is 100% secure! Nothing is 100% secure!" Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu) Adjunct Information Security Officer The University of Texas at Dallas AVIEN Founding Member http://www.utdallas.edu _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: NEVER open attachments, (continued)
- Re: NEVER open attachments Nico Golde (Mar 21)
- Re: NEVER open attachments Troy (Mar 21)
- Re: Re: Administrivia Ron DuFresne (Mar 19)
- RE: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? John . Airey (Mar 18)
- RE: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Schmehl, Paul L (Mar 18)
- Re: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? William Warren (Mar 18)
- RE: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? alwayssecure (Mar 18)
- Re: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Cael Abal (Mar 18)
- RE: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Ng, Kenneth (US) (Mar 18)
- RE: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Random Letters (Mar 19)
- RE: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Paul Schmehl (Mar 19)