On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:40:10 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
> alt <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:34:59 -0700, nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 4:43 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Windows recovery loophole lets hackers in
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | Windows Vista may be Microsoft's most secure operating system to date, but
>>>> | researchers are still finding some glaring loopholes for hackers to
>>>> | exploit. Here is the latest: all you need is a Vista Install DVD to get
>>>> | admin level access to a hard drive.
>>>> |
>>>> | The loophole arises because the Command Prompt tool in Vista's
>>>> | System Recovery Options fails to request user name or passwords
>>>> | before handing over access to PCs running the operating system.
>>>
>>> If you have physical access, wouldn't a Linux LiveCD work just as
>>> well? Encryption of files might be the only defense against this kind
>>> of thing.
>>
>> I have to agree. Any sort of physical access is guaranteed to allow the
>> attacker a successful break in. Personally, I don't even consider physical
>> security outside of a locked/supervised room. An attack is more likely to
>> come from a remote break in than a physical break in.
>>
>
> Security is always a relative thing, there is no absolute security. If
> you want to keep files really safe, then encryption is probably the best
> approach. cfsd, gpg, etc.
>
Most definitely. You need to weigh your security and usability needs. For
most people, the only security they really need to consider is keeping out
kiddies, spammers and phishers.
Others, like police forces and governments, need to worry about preventing
information leaking.
The fact is, more security usually means less usability.
|
|
