On last.fm: Lollapalooza 2009
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 20 of 37:
Next »
« Previous
What is the solution to allow both?
"Tough luck to anyone who doesn't use English because,
after all, security must always come before useability, right?
...
This is a flaw, plain and simple."

No it isn't a flaw, the system is performing as designed
(now we can argue about the design).

MS might be happy to exclude non-English speakers from
surfing the web in their native language, however I'm not
convinced this is the right direction (rather narrow minded
actually).

Indeed the majority of the world's population will
require a non-roman script URI, and given they are not
affected by this phishing bug, why would they care?

Funny this should be raised now as I pointed this out to a
major Australian financial institution over a year ago.
However this is only one of a huge number of internet
banking problems, so don't get me started.

The challenge is to allow non-roman script URIs with
backward compatibility with the historical roman script
dependant DNS system we've grown to love. The Mozilla
foundation with their proposed anti-phishing tools are the
only ones moving in the right direction (as I see it),. The MS
solution of lowest common denominator functionality will
lose in the future (2 billion people will demand better).
Posted by: Richard Flude   Posted on: 02/08/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Now there is a first!  Linux User 147560 | 02/07/05
I was thinking the same thing  rapson | 02/07/05
Hehe  catlord17 | 02/07/05
EXACTLY Dude!  Jeff Spicoli | 02/07/05
Uh oh  NonZealot | 02/07/05
This is just Micro-propaganda  Jeff Spicoli | 02/07/05
So by your logic...  ShadeTree | 02/07/05
Wow  IT Scion | 02/08/05
I knew it....  TechType | 02/08/05
Of course, you're right  Real World | 02/08/05
It's just a smokescreen  rapson | 02/08/05
Disagree...  Anti_Zealot | 02/08/05
When is a feature a flaw?  Richard Flude | 02/07/05
Why don't the same standards apply?  NonZealot | 02/07/05
Running email attachments wasn't a flaw  voska | 02/07/05
It was and IS Stupid. (NT)  Update victim | 02/07/05
I agree  CobraA1 | 02/07/05
It was a benift to me in terms of less phone calls  voska | 02/08/05
And some features aren't thought out before they're implemented  CobraA1 | 02/07/05
What is the solution to allow both?  Richard Flude | 02/08/05
User Ignorance--The Weak Link  Rodney Davis | 02/07/05
easy solution  hipparchus2000 | 02/07/05
Won't work...  htotten | 02/07/05
obviously you didn't read what secunia said  hipparchus2000 | 02/08/05
Man...glad I didn't use alternative browsers...  Grayson Peddie | 02/08/05
Now we will see some GOOD excuses!  TechType | 02/08/05
Backpedalling  rapson | 02/08/05
Usability... for the rest of the planet  OldeTimeGeek | 02/08/05
I have to disagree...  TechType | 02/08/05
No more disingenuous...  rapson | 02/08/05
Hilarious!!  NonZealot | 02/08/05
Maybe I have no sense of humor, but.....  TechType | 02/08/05
Wasn't meant to be hilarious  rapson | 02/08/05
BS  Richard Flude | 02/08/05
IMO, the "MS Bashing" complaints are WAY off-base  kbeartxzd | 03/22/05
Regardless of your side  IT Scion | 02/08/05
User "Ignoragce" is weak link?  stevezd | 03/03/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

SmartPlanet

Click Here