[TriLUG] How not to run a network

[William Sutton]

I've been having a rough morning, so glad to know it wasn't one more thing 
:)

Chalk it all up to frustration on my part.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Dan Monjar wrote:

> William Sutton wrote:
> > The points are:
> > - If I can rename it anyway, then all that does is provide a slightly 
> > higher barrier to the stupidity level, meaning I can still send some luser 
> > a file labeled "your program.dat", tell them that it is useful in some way 
> > or other, and have them wipe out their system.
> > - Likewise, it makes it a serious pain in my backside to send them 
> > legitimate programs (the more so since the IS folks took away IM file 
> > transfer).
> > 
> > In other words, it puts a crimp in my ability to do my job and doesn't (as 
> > far as I can analyze the situation) do anything beyond stop Outlook from 
> > being stupid.  Frankly that's not a sufficient reason to me.
> > 
> > Of course the fact that I have to use Windows to do UNIX development work 
> > is a whole other sore point...
> > 
> > I should also like to point out that can/can't and will/won't are very 
> > different things.  I agree that "can't" is probably indicative that 
> > someone shouldn't be using a computer.  "won't" is debatable.  "doesn't 
> > want to" is a whole other option that you left out in what sounded like a 
> > targeted attack :)
> > 
> 
> no, certainly not targeted at you.  Apologies if it seemed so.
> 
> The policy won't stopped a "targeted" attack.  If I trust you and you 
> abuse that trust by sending me something bad then I am screwed.  But the 
> policy does stop the millions of messages being spewed out by infected 
> machines.
> 
> I honestly cannot see the "serious pain" aspect of this.  Copy prog.exe 
> to prog.exx and mail it to me.  When I detach the file I do a save as to 
> prog.exe.  where's the pain?
> 
> 

-- 
William Sutton
8003 Benaroya Ln B-7
Huntsville AL  35802

M: 919.604.2502