AMD, Microsoft pair up for security

TalkBack 15 of 24:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Funny How this mentions 'consumers and desktops.,

while it may be a network designed 'authenticate to control type mechanism requiring a non-machine-machine to run communications between them.

Another story in here about Microsofts XP service pack has 'Adaware (ZoneLabs) complaining this doesn't do much about the 'netword(ed) computer among computers for 'security.

There is an old tune by a band named 'Rush -,canadian band,in wich the ending line was ''we assume control,we assume control"".

Here what is being said we are asuming to be to somekind of benifit to 'us wherever that 'us within consumers and desktops can be found. Desktops and 'consumers have not been mentioned much lately. Being overshadowed by large networked businesses ,wich by and large,consider the desktops the whole reason for their security problems. While these ideas see machines being used, I see persons using them behind them,and this something wich is anything other than a 'managed situation in wich the machine is subordinate by default ,to some specification requiring an == to be the same demand as the security provider.

It is certainly true if machines where subordinates,as the glib sense of 'client being put out lately the absolutists and 'totalitarians would have a day in the sun.

Certainly as well 'autoconnectivity is the cause for most problems,be it software,program coding itself,or application controls being present or not. The caller id thing is a plus,as well as applications (and the computer) needing permision to use connectivity.

Perhaps the network afuendos are way ahead of me on this because soon your working into protocals and all this where the connectivity cannot be part of the easily notice associations wich can be found as a control.

E.g. if you needed the email to be 'sandboxed (perhaps a complete new processor for this on a chipset),but with Microsoft,Sun,maybe even Lynix doing a XML thing to make up the hardrive,in the quips of being 'easier, making creating associations begins to become a moot point. For now only the browser ,and the email program does the heaving lifting,and as well the heavy hitting here . Simply making associations readily available for such .exe,and .scr for these 'connected apps would be worth the effort if it wasn't so much to do about the 'ease of being networked.

Just how your going to have autoconnectivity controled by the user,will most likely be a detour provision guided by the light of a connected computer requiring thes 'security products to actually have 'autoconnectivity 'active. That is you can be a person and have control of autoconnectivity,you just cant be a person and control autoconnectivity until an network connection is found in order to varify the 'security apps are running (???)

Wich would seem to bring more bullcrap to the party than is really necesary,at least from the example of the 'consumer and destop viewpoint. Bullcrap is what security wants though,it makes jobs much easier to handle.
-just talking.


-just talking.

Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey   Posted on: 02/25/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now