From: "Hrvoje Mesing" 


?
Not true.

Critical CAN be needed as unneeded CAN be critical. Says my grandmother.

...

-+-
M.



"Rich"  wrote in message news:45e9d602$1{at}w3.nls.net...
   Roget's Thesaurus disagrees.  See
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/critical%20needed.

Rich

"Hrvoje Mesing"  wrote in
message news:45e9a6fd{at}w3.nls.net...

unneeded != not critical.


-+-
M.


"Rich"  wrote in message news:45e6f39e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
   unneeded == unnecessary == optional == not critical.

Rich
"Geo."  wrote in message
news:45e6b7c7$1{at}w3.nls.net... Hmmm... "unneeded",
"auxiliary", "not critical", I don't see the term
"unnecessary optional" in there at all Rich.

Would you say the dns client service is unneeded, auxiliary, not critical?
I certainly would unless you are on a large corporate LAN and you argued
with me about it. See your idea of unneeded and mine are vastly different.
To you unneeded is something that is not used at all, to me it's anything
you can shut down without breaking the functionality you need.

I would think the security guys at Symantec (the ones who made that
recommendation) would think like me and judging from the size of their
products lately, management and the programmers think like you.

That would explain why they make such a recommendation and at the same time
get exploited as a virus entry point..

Geo.

"Rich"  wrote in message news:45e66bb5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
   Better understanding, I don't think so.  Different opinion, absolutely.
There is nothing wrong with disabling unnecessary optional services.  What
you do is flailing.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45e64067$2{at}w3.nls.net...
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e4eb2b$1{at}w3.nls.net...

  >>   Now you are trying to read more into what symantec wrote.

  Or perhaps I just have a better understanding of that line of thought.

  Geo.

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