On Tue 12 Mar 2019 at 19:20:34 -0400, deb wrote:
> Fortunately Brian has blocked me,
Eh? You'll have to explain.
--
Brian.
On 3/11/19 5:08 PM, Mart van de Wege wrote:
And yeah, Debian is an upstream distribution, so you will have a lot of
people who are being overly purist about Linux solutions, because they
have the luxury of working in homogenous environments. Unfortunately a
lot of them are lousy communicators.
On 3/12/19 11:05 AM, David Wright wrote:
On Tue 12 Mar 2019 at 15:01:32 (+0100), Mart van de Wege wrote:
Stefan Monnier writes:
OP has a point though. The real world happens to have a huge amount of
heterogeneous networks, and asking for tools to keep those systems safe
is legitimate.
I di
Curt wrote:
> I don't follow how this follows from your erroneous attribution.
try harder ;-)
On Tue 12 Mar 2019 at 15:01:32 (+0100), Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Stefan Monnier writes:
>
> >> OP has a point though. The real world happens to have a huge amount of
> >> heterogeneous networks, and asking for tools to keep those systems safe
> >> is legitimate.
> >
> > I did not perceive the OP
Stefan Monnier writes:
>> OP has a point though. The real world happens to have a huge amount of
>> heterogeneous networks, and asking for tools to keep those systems safe
>> is legitimate.
>
> I did not perceive the OP's request to be about the case where you
> administer lots of machines and yo
On Tue 12/Mar/2019 09:39:53 +0100 didier gaumet wrote:
> Wikipedia makes a comparison of Linux antivirus:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_antivirus_software#Linux
It's astonishing that there is an "Email Security" column, with random yes/no
contents. I wrote a note on that:
http
On 2019-03-10 14:58, deb wrote:
Starting assumption: I do want to run A/V.
* I get that it may actually INCREASE attack surface.
* But I have Windows & Mac stuff going back and forth to Debian 9.8
and just want to check.
* (Clamscan already caught 4 things)
I'm of the opinion that window
On 2019-03-11, deloptes wrote:
> Curt wrote:
>
>> I don't believe he did, actually. I believe that's what Reco wrote.
>
> but there is no secure OS, as soon as you get connected to the network, and
> if you have a server with multiple users ... well. We used to put sensitive
> servers in DMZ aside
Wikipedia makes a comparison of Linux antivirus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_antivirus_software#Linux
On 3/10/19 3:53 PM, Brian wrote:
On Sun 10 Mar 2019 at 13:18:54 -0400, deb wrote:
Crumogeon tip: It is no longer 1972. If you have nothing nice or at least
helpful to say on a USER list, say nothing at all.
All the responses were helpful. You just have to fit them into your
World View and
> OP has a point though. The real world happens to have a huge amount of
> heterogeneous networks, and asking for tools to keep those systems safe
> is legitimate.
I did not perceive the OP's request to be about the case where you
administer lots of machines and you want to use a Debian machine as
Curt wrote:
> I don't believe he did, actually. I believe that's what Reco wrote.
but there is no secure OS, as soon as you get connected to the network, and
if you have a server with multiple users ... well. We used to put sensitive
servers in DMZ aside of the user network - for a good reason.
ect). Just that instead of keeping your A/V
> up-to-date, the GNU/Linux approach to protecting oneself from attacks is
> to keep your OS up-to-date.
>
>
> Stefan
>
>
> PS: I guess that means I should have pointed to `unattended-upgrades`
> rather than to `apt` as the
> There is a spectrum of Windows software than runs between evil malware
> and legitimate programs, it isn't just black and white, and many
Agreed, but I doubt A/V software will know where to draw the line.
Stefan
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:53:39 -0400
Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > re: apt solving all? I understand it recently had a long-time
> > vulnerability itself...
> > Linux will get hit more as it gets more popular.
>
> My point is not that APT and/or Debian is bullet-proof (I live under
> no delusion in
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:45:28 -0400
Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > I think the premises of your syllogism might lead some to another
> > conclusion---that the livelihood of the AV software houses depends
> > upon the innate insecurity of the Windows OS.
>
> Hmm... they don't actually need that: they
date, the GNU/Linux approach to protecting oneself from attacks is
to keep your OS up-to-date.
Stefan
PS: I guess that means I should have pointed to `unattended-upgrades`
rather than to `apt` as the solution that corresponds to an anti-virus.
On 3/10/19 1:33 PM, Mart van de Wege wrote:
deb writes:
Starting assumption: I do want to run A/V.
* I get that it may actually INCREASE attack surface.
* But I have Windows & Mac stuff going back and forth to Debian 9.8
and just want to check.
When you say going back and forth, do you
> I think the premises of your syllogism might lead some to another
> conclusion---that the livelihood of the AV software houses depends upon
> the innate insecurity of the Windows OS.
Hmm... they don't actually need that: they only need people to
think that they're vulnerable (regardless if their
On 2019-03-11, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Not that I'm aware of. The thing is - instead of taking an insecure OS
>> and building assorted kludges (in the form of anti-virus) around it,
>> it's considered wise here to use a secure OS from the beginning.
>
> This is
I use clamav along with clamav-unofficial-sigs, Sanesecurity and Securiteinfo
(which I pay for)
Secondly, I use “Bitdefender Security for Mail Servers – Linux”, again which I
pay for.
I use clamav-milter and the bdmilterd to scan mail using clamav and Bit
Defender.
I must say that it was pret
> Not that I'm aware of. The thing is - instead of taking an insecure OS
> and building assorted kludges (in the form of anti-virus) around it,
> it's considered wise here to use a secure OS from the beginning.
This is misleading: all OSes are somewhat insecure, in practice.
T
On 2019-03-11, Paul Sutton wrote:
>
> On 10/03/2019 15:04, Sven Hartge wrote:
>> deb wrote:
>>
>>> a. What does the group suggest running on debian beyond
>>> - chkrootkit
>> Useless.
>>
>>> - rkhunter
>> Crap, unmaintained.
>>
>> Both tools produce more false positives than finding anyth
On 10/03/2019 15:04, Sven Hartge wrote:
> deb wrote:
>
>> a. What does the group suggest running on debian beyond
>> - chkrootkit
> Useless.
>
>> - rkhunter
> Crap, unmaintained.
>
> Both tools produce more false positives than finding anything, just
> creating a false sense of security
On 2019-03-11, deloptes wrote:
> deb wrote:
I don't believe he did, actually. I believe that's what Reco wrote.
>> Not that I'm aware of. The thing is - instead of taking an insecure OS
>> and building assorted kludges (in the form of anti-virus) around it,
>>
deb wrote:
> Not that I'm aware of. The thing is - instead of taking an insecure OS
> and building assorted kludges (in the form of anti-virus) around it,
> it's considered wise here to use a secure OS from the beginning.
If you have windows users in your network, the best is
deb wrote:
> ClamAV
I recall 15y ago we integrated kasperky into ClamAV. Easy to integrate and
easy to use. Worked great. I left this company couple of years later, but
it will not surprise me if they are still using the same setup.
On Sun 10 Mar 2019 at 13:18:54 -0400, deb wrote:
> I posted a question A/Vs and got negative waves like the below.
It only looks "negative" because you have an agenda. I myself thought
the responses were reasonable and balanced.
> Several people ASS-UMED I was trying to kludge Windows into Linux
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 19:46:42 +
mick crane wrote:
> On 2019-03-10 17:13, Joe wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 19:35:18 +0300
> > Reco wrote:
> >
> >>Hi.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 04:32:42PM -, Curt wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I thought he was saying the surest approach is n
t;assorted help"
Not that I'm aware of. The thing is - instead of taking an insecure OS
and building assorted kludges (in the form of anti-virus) around it,
it's considered wise here to use a secure OS from the beginning.
I thought he was saying the surest approach is not touchi
Hi.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 05:13:35PM +, Joe wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 19:35:18 +0300
> Reco wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 04:32:42PM -, Curt wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I thought he was saying the surest approach is not touching Windows
> > > with a ten foot pole,
> >
> >
On 2019-03-10 17:13, Joe wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 19:35:18 +0300
Reco wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 04:32:42PM -, Curt wrote:
>
> I thought he was saying the surest approach is not touching Windows
> with a ten foot pole,
You're aiming too low. Not touching any non-free O
> While bearing in mind that 'free' doesn't mean 'problem-free'.
> Remember how many people audited the Heartbleed code before it was
> released?
Indeed. But it doesn't take more time to update openssl than to update
a virus scanner.
Stefan
> Starting assumption: I do want to run A/V.
You have it: it's called `apt` (i.e. in the world of Debian, the
response to "viruses" is to plug the hole they try to exploit, instead
of leaving those holes gaping while wasting resources trying to look for
known attacks).
> * (Clamscan already caug
deb writes:
> Starting assumption: I do want to run A/V.
>
> * I get that it may actually INCREASE attack surface.
>
> * But I have Windows & Mac stuff going back and forth to Debian 9.8
> and just want to check.
When you say going back and forth, do you mean over the network?
On Linux the be
at
least helpful to say on a USER list, say nothing at all.
But you will anyways...
"assorted help"
Not that I'm aware of. The thing is - instead of taking an insecure OS
and building assorted kludges (in the form of anti-virus) around it,
it's considered wise here to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 19:35:18 +0300
Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 04:32:42PM -, Curt wrote:
>
> >
> > I thought he was saying the surest approach is not touching Windows
> > with a ten foot pole,
>
> You're aiming too low. Not touching any non-free OS with a ten foot
assumption: I do want to run A/V.
> >>> [*SNIP*]
> >>
> >>> b. Does the list keep a ~ "pinned" answer for these kinds of questions?
> >>
> >> Not that I'm aware of. The thing is - instead of taking an insecure OS
> >> and building a
keep a ~ "pinned" answer for these kinds of questions?
>>
>> Not that I'm aware of. The thing is - instead of taking an insecure OS
>> and building assorted kludges (in the form of anti-virus) around it,
>> it's considered wise here to use a secure OS from th
On Sunday 10 March 2019 10:58:12 deb wrote:
> Starting assumption: I do want to run A/V.
>
> * I get that it may actually INCREASE attack surface.
>
> * But I have Windows & Mac stuff going back and forth to Debian 9.8
> and just want to check.
>
> * (Clamscan already caught 4 things)
>
>
>
ad of taking an insecure OS
and building assorted kludges (in the form of anti-virus) around it,
it's considered wise here to use a secure OS from the beginning.
Recommended reading list applicable to Debian?
> - ClamAV
Can catch a Windoze virus or two. The intended purpose of clamav is to
sit on e-mail relay and scan the mail, which is does fulfill.
> b. Does the list keep a ~ "pinned" answer for these kinds of questions?
Not that I'm aware of. The thing is - instead of takin
deb wrote:
> a. What does the group suggest running on debian beyond
> - chkrootkit
Useless.
> - rkhunter
Crap, unmaintained.
Both tools produce more false positives than finding anything, just
creating a false sense of security while providing no security benefit
whatsoever.
Grüße,
Starting assumption: I do want to run A/V.
* I get that it may actually INCREASE attack surface.
* But I have Windows & Mac stuff going back and forth to Debian 9.8
and just want to check.
* (Clamscan already caught 4 things)
a. What does the group suggest running on debian beyond
ing for any suggestions regarding Anti virus and firewall software
> that is suitable with your Debian 5 64bit operating system. Wanting to add
> as much security as possible to our server to reduce any problems we may
> encounter. I would like any suggestions as to the best software that ca
On 8/4/2010 12:43 PM, Brian wrote:
On Wed 04 Aug 2010 at 10:09:17 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
Correct. It wouldn't be there in the first place and I don't plan on
having my root acoount compromised. Besides, I know my system.
Naive but cute you think that though. You obviously don't to the lat
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 18:43, Brian wrote:
> Besides, I know my system.
Famous last words... ;)
--
() ascii-rubanda kampajno - kontraŭ html-a retpoŝto
/\ ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscri
On Wed 04 Aug 2010 at 10:09:17 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> Because a rootkit can't remain hidden and inject itself back into the
> binary after a "security update" right?
Correct. It wouldn't be there in the first place and I don't plan on
having my root acoount compromised. Besides, I know
On 8/4/2010 9:24 AM, Brian wrote:
On Wed 04 Aug 2010 at 10:53:42 +0200, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
chkrootkit - rootkit detector
rkhunter - rootkit, backdoor, sniffer and exploit scanner
If ckkrootkit really did detect worms like Lupper, Lion
and Adore (as opposed to the false positive
On Wed 04 Aug 2010 at 10:53:42 +0200, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
> chkrootkit - rootkit detector
> rkhunter - rootkit, backdoor, sniffer and exploit scanner
If ckkrootkit really did detect worms like Lupper, Lion
and Adore (as opposed to the false positives both programs
appear fond of gener
regarding Anti virus and firewall
software that is suitable with your Debian 5 64bit operating system.
Wanting to add as much security as possible to our server to reduce
any problems we may encounter. I would like any suggestions as to the
best software that can be used either paid for or freeware if
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 22:43 +0100, Tingez Unknown wrote:
> Firstly i am very new to Debian so please excuse me for my lack of
> understanding.
Welcome to Debian :)
> I am looking for any suggestions regarding Anti virus and firewall software
> that is suitable with your De
Hi,
As Aaron Toponce said, most viruses target Windows, but if you share a
lot of files it would be nice (for your windows users) to scan them.
Try clamav: http://www.clamav.net/
Debian package clamav i tihnk, and it installs freshclam as well for updates.
As for firewall, i'm happy with shorewal
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 10:43:05PM +0100, Tingez Unknown wrote:
>I am looking for any suggestions regarding Anti virus and firewall
>software that is suitable with your Debian 5 64bit operating system.
>Wanting to add as much security as possible to our server to r
, sending and receiving
files and all other aspects web site related, fast redirect downloading
system for game server maps, mods etc., ftp, Big brother bot game server
software and game servers of varying games.
I am looking for any suggestions regarding Anti virus and firewall software
that is
gt;>>>> On 10/16/08 21:35, Raj Kiran Grandhi wrote:
>>>>>> Don Sutter wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I certainly hope the following doesn't start a flame war! I would
>>>>>>> li
>
>
> I will second Avast. You will have to pay for a company use, but they do
> have a freebie version that you can use at home. There is not much
> difference between the two from what I can tell (in terms of what they
> can do). Plus their support has been really helpful when I needed it.
>
>
y hope the following doesn't start a flame war! I
would like
to use Linux to scan Windows drives for viruses. Since Linux is
generally slime free are any of the Linux anti-virus solutions
robust
enough to handle Windows? Perhaps I should consider using VM,
Windows
and a Windows based anti-v
ince Linux is
> > generally slime free are any of the Linux anti-virus solutions
robust
> > enough to handle Windows? Perhaps I should consider using VM,
Windows
> > and a Windows based anti-virus? Ideas?
>
> Did you give clamav a try? It is in the repos.
> Avast has a ve
oesn't start a flame war! I would like
to use Linux to scan Windows drives for viruses. Since Linux is
generally slime free are any of the Linux anti-virus solutions robust
enough to handle Windows? Perhaps I should consider using VM, Windows
and a Windows based anti-virus? Ideas?
Did you gi
All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I certainly hope the following doesn't start a flame war! I would like
>>>>> to use Linux to scan Windows drives for viruses. Since Linux is
>>>>> generally slime free are any of the Linux anti-virus solutions robust
>&
> >> But can it run stand-alone, to analyze all files in a tree, or plug
> >> into Samba, so that all new or modified files get scanned?
> >>
> >
> > Samba shares are just mounted file systems right? So I am sure that
> > clamav can simply be used to scan those files in the shares...
>
> *If* it
can Windows drives for viruses. Since Linux is
generally slime free are any of the Linux anti-virus solutions robust
enough to handle Windows? Perhaps I should consider using VM, Windows
and a Windows based anti-virus? Ideas?
Did you give clamav a try? It is in the repos.
>>
But can it ru
; to use Linux to scan Windows drives for viruses. Since Linux is
> >> generally slime free are any of the Linux anti-virus solutions robust
> >> enough to handle Windows? Perhaps I should consider using VM, Windows
> >> and a Windows based anti-virus? Ideas?
> >
On 10/16/08 21:35, Raj Kiran Grandhi wrote:
Don Sutter wrote:
Hi All,
I certainly hope the following doesn't start a flame war! I would like
to use Linux to scan Windows drives for viruses. Since Linux is
generally slime free are any of the Linux anti-virus solutions robust
enough to h
Don Sutter wrote:
Hi All,
I certainly hope the following doesn't start a flame war! I would like
to use Linux to scan Windows drives for viruses. Since Linux is
generally slime free are any of the Linux anti-virus solutions robust
enough to handle Windows? Perhaps I should consider usi
Hi All,
I certainly hope the following doesn't start a flame war! I would like
to use Linux to scan Windows drives for viruses. Since Linux is
generally slime free are any of the Linux anti-virus solutions robust
enough to handle Windows? Perhaps I should consider using VM, Windows
and a Wi
Hello,
I'm migrating an old mail server (qmail) to a new server (new hw). I want to
add some anti-spam and anti-virus filter to qmail. I'm thinking about two
solutions:
- Qmail-ldap + qmail-scanner+clamav+spamassassin
- Qmail-ldap + clamsmtp + spampd + iptables
What do you think ab
Grok Mogger wrote:
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
[*snip*]
I looked into this and it turns out that they do have a Linux version
available.
But apparently only as an rpm.
Is there any way to install an rpm on Debian...?
I guess a good 2nd question to ask would be, if so, does it seem to
work w
Grok Mogger wrote:
> Is there any way to install an rpm on Debian...?
There's rpm, but alien might be better (since it'll try to convert it to
a .deb)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
steef wrote:
> thank you all for your comments. i have decided to install AVG because
> i function here as mailserver for two maillistst, from - mostly-
> windows_machines via my debian-computer to other (mostly)
> windows_machines; with the exception of some french farmers who
> installed linux
Raquel wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:06:11 +0200
steef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/17/06 03:21, steef wrote:
hi list,
AVG (www.grisoft.com) has a in their opinion 'free'
anti-virusprogram > AVG
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 06:17:05PM +0200, steef wrote:
...well you made your point clear, and convincingly. i *had* clamav
installed but did not do with it what is possible, when i read your
email well.
so: i gonna read the stuff on clamav and make a as
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 06:17:05PM +0200, steef wrote:
> >
> ...well you made your point clear, and convincingly. i *had* clamav
> installed but did not do with it what is possible, when i read your
> email well.
> so: i gonna read the stuff on clamav and make a as complete
> reconnaissance of
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 18.10.06 17:21, steef wrote:
thank you all for your comments. i have decided to install AVG because
i function here as mailserver for two maillistst, from - mostly-
windows_machines via my debian-computer to other (mostly)
windows_machines; with the except
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 05:21:36PM +0200, steef wrote:
P. Johnson wrote:
steef wrote:
hi list,
AVG (www.grisoft.com) has a in their opinion 'free' anti-virusprogram
AVG. does debian (i.c. sarge and or etch) really need such a program?
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 05:21:36PM +0200, steef wrote:
> P. Johnson wrote:
> >steef wrote:
> >
> >
> >>hi list,
> >>
> >>AVG (www.grisoft.com) has a in their opinion 'free' anti-virusprogram
> >>AVG. does debian (i.c. sarge and or etch) really need such a program?
> >>
> >
> >Debian has ClamA
On 18.10.06 17:21, steef wrote:
> thank you all for your comments. i have decided to install AVG because
> i function here as mailserver for two maillistst, from - mostly-
> windows_machines via my debian-computer to other (mostly)
> windows_machines; with the exception of some french farmers
P. Johnson wrote:
steef wrote:
hi list,
AVG (www.grisoft.com) has a in their opinion 'free' anti-virusprogram
AVG. does debian (i.c. sarge and or etch) really need such a program?
Debian has ClamAV, though given that there are a total of 5 unix viruses,
and none of them in current ci
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:06:11 +0200
steef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 10/17/06 03:21, steef wrote:
> >
> >> hi list,
> >>
> >> AVG (www.grisoft.com) has a in their opinion 'free'
> >anti-virusprogram > AVG. does
find their
source-code on their webpage.
your comments on this topic are highly appreciated,
AVG offers a free, limited version of their windows anti-virus program
and its actually pretty good (I use it on my wife's win box and I
recommend it to my kool-aid drinking friends). It is free, in
ce-code on their webpage.
your comments on this topic are highly appreciated,
AVG offers a free, limited version of their windows anti-virus program
and its actually pretty good (I use it on my wife's win box and I
recommend it to my kool-aid drinking friends). It is free, in that you
do
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/17/06 03:21, steef wrote:
hi list,
AVG (www.grisoft.com) has a in their opinion 'free' anti-virusprogram
AVG. does debian (i.c. sarge and or etch) really need such a program?
and, what is free? i cannot find their source
;
>>> anti-virusprogram AVG. does debian (i.c. sarge and or etch)
>>> really need such a program? and, what is free? i cannot find
>>> their source-code on their webpage.
>>>
>>> your comments on this topic are highly appreciated,
>>
>> AVG off
e on their webpage.
your comments on this topic are highly appreciated,
AVG offers a free, limited version of their windows anti-virus program
and its actually pretty good (I use it on my wife's win box and I
recommend it to my kool-aid drinking friends). It is free, in that you
don'
steef wrote:
> hi list,
>
> AVG (www.grisoft.com) has a in their opinion 'free' anti-virusprogram
> AVG. does debian (i.c. sarge and or etch) really need such a program?
Debian has ClamAV, though given that there are a total of 5 unix viruses,
and none of them in current circulation, virus scann
their webpage.
>
> your comments on this topic are highly appreciated,
AVG offers a free, limited version of their windows anti-virus program
and its actually pretty good (I use it on my wife's win box and I
recommend it to my kool-aid drinking friends). It is free, in that you
don't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/17/06 03:21, steef wrote:
> hi list,
>
> AVG (www.grisoft.com) has a in their opinion 'free' anti-virusprogram
> AVG. does debian (i.c. sarge and or etch) really need such a program?
> and, what is free? i cannot find their source-code on their
hi list,
AVG (www.grisoft.com) has a in their opinion 'free' anti-virusprogram
AVG. does debian (i.c. sarge and or etch) really need such a program?
and, what is free? i cannot find their source-code on their webpage.
your comments on this topic are highly appreciated,
thanks on the advance
Dear Customer,
The blueyonder anti-virus system found a virus in this message which it
was unable to clean and all infected attachments have been deleted.
This is an automated message - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AS
THIS MAILBOX IS NOT MONITORED.
For further online security
Dear Customer,
The blueyonder anti-virus system found a virus in this message which it
was unable to clean and all infected attachments have been deleted.
This is an automated message - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AS
THIS MAILBOX IS NOT MONITORED.
For further online security
Dear Customer,
The blueyonder anti-virus system found a virus in this message which it
was unable to clean and all infected attachments have been deleted.
This is an automated message - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AS
THIS MAILBOX IS NOT MONITORED.
For further online security
Dear Customer,
The blueyonder anti-virus system found a virus in this message which it
was unable to clean and all infected attachments have been deleted.
This is an automated message - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AS
THIS MAILBOX IS NOT MONITORED.
For further online security
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 17:38 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> > On 2006-04-25, Ron Johnson penned:
> >
> >>On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 13:34 -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> >>
> >>>Sure, but I could write a program in COBOL and still load passwords
> >>>from a plain text fi
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> On 2006-04-25, Roberto C. Sanchez penned:
>
>>I think you are twisting Ron's point. His original point was that
>>some languages (like C/C++) make it possible to have hard to detect
>>subtle faults that become security problems. Other languages (like
>>COBOL) do away w
On 2006-04-25, Roberto C. Sanchez penned:
>
> I think you are twisting Ron's point. His original point was that
> some languages (like C/C++) make it possible to have hard to detect
> subtle faults that become security problems. Other languages (like
> COBOL) do away with those subtle issues. Es
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> On 2006-04-25, Ron Johnson penned:
>
>>On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 13:34 -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>>
>>>Sure, but I could write a program in COBOL and still load passwords
>>>from a plain text file stored with wide-open permissions, just for
>>>example.
>>
>>That's will
On 2006-04-25, Ron Johnson penned:
> On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 13:34 -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>>
>> Sure, but I could write a program in COBOL and still load passwords
>> from a plain text file stored with wide-open permissions, just for
>> example.
>
> That's willfully stupid programming.
Peo
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 13:34 -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> On 2006-04-22, Ron Johnson penned:
> > On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 09:42 -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> >> On 2006-04-22, Ron Johnson penned:
> >> >
> >> > Unless you write with a secure language like COBOL.
> >>
> >> I'm sure it's possibl
1 - 100 of 232 matches
Mail list logo
