Archive of:
CF-Talk
Cold Fusion - Technical
home
24 hour view
quick stats
weekly updates
all tallylists
corporate solutions
archive your favorite
help / feedback
About Cold Fusion :
product's home
product's list home
|
|
Archived TallyList / CF-Talk:
Subject: RE: icq, aol, icm
Jeremy Allen (47p/+1r) Posted: Tuesday 27 Mar 2001 This post: 91 views, +0 rating
That is an obtuse answer to a complex problem.
Go back to your IT manager and tell him that Windows is a security threat because it will run a virus.
Tell him that Outlook creates internet worms and should not be used. Tell him that webpages have cross scripting exploits and shouldnt be used.
There is an inherent amount of risk in anything. The ICQ protocol used to be rather unsecure. But.. ICQ/AIm/Whatever dont allow for arbitrary execution of code. Maybe someone can impersonate you but its not an actual threat to your systems stability at all. There are no common exploits that can really cause any harm to your system for any messenging client.
Woe to AOL of ICQ or AIM were to actually have holes like that. They market ICQ as a tool businesses can use to coloborate. A security threat, probably not.
Nothing is ever definite but it is a pretty safe bet that ICQ,AIM/Xyz IM client isnt a true security hazard.
Jeremy Allen elliptIQ Inc.
>-----Original Message----- >From: Larry W. Virden [mailto:lvirden@cas.org] >Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 2:06 PM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: Re: icq, aol, icm > > >Re: does instant messager create a security hole > > >A mentor once told me 'if you turn on the computer, you have just >created a potential security problem. The only secure computer >is one which is _completely_ powered off and unplugged.' > > >-- >Larry W. Virden <URL: mailto:lvirden@cas.org> ><URL: http://www.purl.org/net/lvirden/> >Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this >posting >should be construed as representing my employer's opinions. > > > > >
Similar Subject Line Posts (+/- two weeks of this post)
| RE: icq, aol, icm | 27 Mar 2001 |
(44 v/ +0 r) |
| RE: icq, aol, icm | 27 Mar 2001 |
(48 v/ +0 r) |
| OT: RE: icq, aol, icm | 27 Mar 2001 |
(43 v/ +0 r) |
| RE: icq, aol, icm | 27 Mar 2001 |
(45 v/ +0 r) |
| RE: icq, aol, icm | 27 Mar 2001 |
(49 v/ +0 r) |
| RE: icq, aol, icm | 27 Mar 2001 |
(38 v/ +0 r) |
| RE: icq, aol, icm | 27 Mar 2001 |
(42 v/ +0 r) |
| RE: icq, aol, icm | 27 Mar 2001 |
(41 v/ +0 r) |
| RE: icq, aol, icm | 27 Mar 2001 (this post) |
(91 v/ +0 r) |
| RE: icq, aol, icm | 27 Mar 2001 |
(49 v/ +0 r) |
| Re: icq, aol, icm | 27 Mar 2001 |
(50 v/ +0 r) |
| Re: icq, aol, icm | 27 Mar 2001 |
(50 v/ +0 r) |
| RE: icq, aol, icm | 27 Mar 2001 |
(46 v/ +0 r) |
| icq, aol, icm | 27 Mar 2001 |
(46 v/ +0 r) |
| Re: icq, aol, icm | 27 Mar 2001 |
(46 v/ +0 r) |
| Send a reply to the CF-Talk list! |
 |
NOTE: Many lists will reject your post unless you have already registered with them. Also - don't forget the right account to send from (for those with multiple emails!) |
|