RE: [in] Re: IE is just as safe as FireFox

["Todd Towles" <toddtowles () brookshires com>]

Windows doesn't tell you about the Admin account and makes the default
user a Admin. That isn't best method as you know. 

RunAs is great..but that is only good once you create a normal user -
and then delete your new default user. Or you log in in Administrator
and take away the full control of the default user. Easy for the average
window user? Nope. If it was Microsoft would make the default user (note
USER) and then let you configure the Admin account on start. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com 
> [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of 
> Crotty, Edward
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 12:13 PM
> To: full-disclosure () lists netsys com
> Subject: RE: [in] Re: [Full-disclosure] IE is just as safe as FireFox
>
> I'm not a Win based guy (troll?) - Un*x here - and even I was 
> offended by #1.
>
> There is such a thing as "runas" for Windows.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com
> [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com]On Behalf Of devis
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 11:10 AM
> Cc: full-disclosure () lists netsys com
> Subject: Re: [in] Re: [Full-disclosure] IE is just as safe as FireFox
>
>
> This message is primarily destined to all MS trolls, no 
> matter their levels, and i can see so many in this list that 
> i am happy to target a large audience.
>
> Please run some unix or at least read about the unix 
> permission system, and lets pray god this sheds some light in 
> your mono cultured brains. 
> Here are the relevant points:
>
> 1) Despite recent ameliorations of MS ( multi user finally, 
> permissions ... ) and some effort at making the system more 
> secure, something very important is still left out: The first 
> default user of the MS computer is made an administrator. 
> This comes down to giving uid0 to ur first unix user. Unix 
> does NOT do that. It requieres you to use su and become root 
> ( administrator ) after proper credentials submission ( password ). 
> The first user is NOT and administrator, and any recent Unix 
> documentation will insist on the danger of running as 
> root(admin). Unix keeps the admin account well separated from 
> the user account, which MS DOESN'T, despite all wrong 
> arguments i read on this list. VERY BAD practice generally. 
> So its user friendly, as the user has admin rights and can 
> therefore install and remove software and change major 
> configuration. Majority of users don't and will never know 
> there is an 'administrator' user that hides from their eyes.
> This little detail that apparently Ms people can't 
> 'understand' is  a huge step. Please install a proper unix, 
> create 2 accounts and try to read the home directory of the 
> second user from the first.
>
> 2) "After all, they don;t need to know" . " You're on a need 
> to know basis job"
> Do MS really think the users are stupid ? Do understanding 
> different IDs/ roles / accounts on a computer that much of a 
> tough message to pass to the end user ? Isn't security 
> important and supposedly the goal of recent MS developpements 
> ? If they really did target security, their efforts will have 
> been into making the user understand that he should be admin 
> to install programs, and a non priviledged user to surf the web. 
> IS that that hard to understand ? And that much hidden into 
> high IT security professionnal unreachable knowledge ? I 
> don;t think so. Doesn't a company such as MS has enough 
> ressources to make that a priority and educate the users ? 
> Off course it has. Just not very 'commercially' 
> friendly as if user then understand roles, it might requires 
> less Anti virus, personnal firewall and other bullshit FUD's 
> scareware ( Yes its scareware, and it is the best selling 
> software category OF ALL times of software history ).
>
>
> This is why, Firefox being independant from this OS that 
> carries 60 of its code base as being legacy code for older 
> system hardware and backward compatibility, is likely more 
> secure than the in house integrated application. Now if u are 
> running Firefox as an administrator .....don't be surprised 
> if something happens. Don;t blame the software, but your poor 
> security practices.
>
> Lets not hide from ourselves whats needed from MS to reach 
> modern world
> security:
> a complete rewrite, and a ditch of old Dos base and the 20 
> years old legacy code.
>
> Hopes that clears things.
>
>
>
> Rafel Ivgi, The-Insider wrote:
>
> > Firefox is not intgrated to the OS, because it doesn't have an OS.
> > Its just a trimmed Mozilla for windows..
> > However Mozilla in Linux is integrated at some level...so 
> they are just 
> > the same as I.E.
> >
> >
> > Rafel Ivgi, The-Insider
> > Security Consultant
> > Malicious Code Research Center (MCRC)
> > Finjan Software LTD
> > E-mail: rivgi () Finjan com
> > ---------------------------------
> > Prevention is the best cure!
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "john morris" <me.morris () gmail com>
> > To: <full-disclosure () lists netsys com>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 3:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: [in] Re: [Full-disclosure] IE is just as safe as FireFox
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > > Firefox avoids several fundamental design flaws of IE, in that:
> > >
> > > -Firefox is not integrated into Windows, and thus closes holes 
> > > allowing access to the OS.
> > >
> > > -Firefox does not support ActiveX JavaVM or VBScript, three 
> Microsoft 
> > > proprietary technologies that are responsible for many 
> security holes.
> > > -Firefox does not allow for the invasion of your system by 
> adware and 
> > > spyware just by visiting a website.
> > >
> > > (FROM LINKS TO LINKS WE ARE ALL LINKED)
> > >
> > > cheersssss.....
> > >
> > > morris
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> > >    
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------
> > This message was scanned for malicious content and viruses by Finjan 
> > Internet Vital Security 1Box(tm)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> >
> >
> >  
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html