From: Mike '/m' 


Microsoft has said, "We firmly believe that people should have
complete control over what runs on their computers."

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39201837,00.htm

You don't believe them?

 /m



On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 09:39:17 -0400, "Geo"  wrote:

>Not entirely true, if the feature is available to any software I load on the
machine then it's up to the programmer as well. If both Intel and MS had
built in user controls so that we could turn on the capabilities for
whatever programs we wanted to allow to access these security features then
I might agree with your "it's up to you" statement.
>
>I don't like control of my machine being taken away from me.
>
>Geo.
>  "Rich"  wrote in message news:4347640f{at}w3.nls.net...
>     Check whatever you want.  It's up to you.
>
>  Rich
>
>    "Geo"  wrote in message
news:43470b84{at}w3.nls.net...
>    enabled and up to date antivirus means nothing. I can't count the number
of Norton protected machines that are trojaned that I see on a daily basis.
>
>    Geo.
>      "Rich"  wrote in message news:43455f13$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>         First, DRM is irrelevant here and unless you are trying to spread FUD
I don't see why you would mention it.
>
>         As for the rest, you should be going back in time.  See
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/prodtech/windowsserver2003/quarantine
services/default.mspx.  You can perform whatever validation you want on the
client.  Typical checks would be to verify that client security policy is
met such as enabled and up to date antivirus and firewall.
>
>         In Longhorn this gets extended to the LAN.  See
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/networking/nap/default.
mspx.
>
>         I believe Cisco also has products in this space.
>
>      Rich
>
>
>        "John Beckett"
 wrote in message
news:fpq9k19od4ntbh0flgobh19p4kclbgqetn{at}4ax.com...
>        "Geo"  wrote in message
news::
>        > I guess I'm stupid but I only use VPN's to link secure networks
together,
>        > using one to allow an insecure computer total access to a secure
network
>        > seems like a security accident just waiting to happen.. Insecure
machines
>        > like wandering laptops belong on their own network firewalled from
the
>        > secure network with only limited access.
>
>        We live in interesting times...
>
>        Fast-forwarding to the future by, say, two years:
>        The only half-way decent procedure to allow a roaming laptop to have
>        remote access to your network is to require that the laptop be running
a
>        DRM-protected system, including hardware, BIOS and OS. That way, you
will
>        know that only trusted software is running on the machine.
>
>        Anything less than the Microsoft/Intel/et-al DRM initiative means you
just
>        won't be able to allow roaming machines to connect to the core office
>        network.
>
>        John

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5