IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Who is going to die this time?
Microsoft got another security [link|http://eros.cs.jhu.edu/~shap/NT-EAL4.html|certification].
--

We have only 2 things to worry about: That
things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
New ROFL!!!
Security experts have been saying for years that the the security of the Windows family of products is hopelessly inadequate. Now there is a rigorous government certification confirming this.


And even better:

The Controlled Access Protection Profile (CAPP) standard document can be found at the Common Criteria website. Here is a description of the CAPP requirements taken from the document itself (from page 9):
The CAPP provides for a level of protection which is appropriate for an assumed non-hostile and well-managed user community requiring protection against threats of inadvertent or casual attempts to breach the system security. The profile is not intended to be applicable to circumstances in which protection is required against determined attempts by hostile and well funded attackers to breach system security. The CAPP does not fully address the threats posed by malicious system development or administrative personnel.

Translating that into colloquial English:
Don't hook this to the internet, don't run email, don't install software unless you can 100% trust the developer, and if anybody who works for you turns out to be out to get you you are toast.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Expand Edited by admin Nov. 18, 2002, 10:33:13 AM EST
New My favorite
It tells you that Microsoft spent millions of dollars producing documentation that shows that Windows 2000 meets an inadequate set of requirements, and that you can have reasonably strong confidence that this is the case.

(emphasis added)
New Jonathan Shapiro, maybe...? </conspiracy-theory>
New Lemme guess...you read Cryptogram?
The [link|http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0211.html|latest issue] had some fun stuff. Including that.

Warning: Following its links may take longer than you have to spend. :-)

Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
New Following Cryptogram's links
...is one of the few ways I read meaningful material anymore. I'm always pleased by its insanely high S/N ratio compared to, say, the flood of bugtraq emails I get every day (not that they're fluff, but I don't use a tenth of the buggy products exposed (repeatedly!) on that list).

Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
New Cool
After I posted that I saw that the same link had hit /. - unattributed of course.

Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
New They finally got what they asked for.
Except it's turned out to be a lot more honest than they probably want. :-)

Wade.

"Ah. One of the difficult questions."

     Who is going to die this time? - (Arkadiy) - (7)
         ROFL!!! - (admin) - (1)
             My favorite - (Silverlock)
         Jonathan Shapiro, maybe...? </conspiracy-theory> -NT - (CRConrad)
         Lemme guess...you read Cryptogram? - (ben_tilly) - (2)
             Following Cryptogram's links - (tseliot) - (1)
                 Cool - (ben_tilly)
         They finally got what they asked for. - (static)

Nine for Mortal Chellovecks doomed to snuff it.
98 ms