From: "Geo" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00BB_01C5B97B.9DCEAA10
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

stop assuming you have malware running, instead assume you are in the =
first stages of getting malware loaded onto the machine by exploiting =
whatever features the machine lends to you.

Geo.
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:4328c38c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     Depending on what you believe the purpose of activation you may be =
right.

     As for being secure, that isn't the discussion here or if you think =
it is you are being a fool.  If you have malware running it can do what =
you can do.  If you don't want it to change something that an admin is =
intended to change then do not run as an admin.  Better still, don't run =
malware.

  Rich

    "Geo."  wrote in message =
news:432858e3$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    Gee you make it sound so easy, if the admin owns the machine then =
activation is doomed to failure. Or is there some point to this "more
= tedious"?

    I guess the users' firewall doesn't need to be as secure as the copy =
protection, huh?

    Geo.
      "Rich"  wrote in message news:432844cb{at}w3.nls.net...
         You can't keep out the admin for several reasons.  You can make =
it more tedious but it would be nothing more than window dressing.  The =
admin owns the machine.  Also, if there is any UI to allow a user to =
configure the software, which clearly needs to exist, then there by =
definition is a means to make changes.

         Basically, if malware is already running on a system it can do =
whatever the user account under which it is running can do.

      Rich

------=_NextPart_000_00BB_01C5B97B.9DCEAA10
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








stop assuming you have malware
running, =
instead=20
assume you are in the first stages of getting malware loaded onto the = machine by=20
exploiting whatever features the machine lends to you.
 
Geo.

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:4328c38c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    
Depending on what you =
believe the=20
  purpose of activation you may be right.
   
     As for
being secure, =
that isn't the=20
  discussion here or if you think it is you are being a fool.  If =
you have=20
  malware running it can do what you can do.  If you don't want it =
to=20
  change something that an admin is intended to change then do not run =
as an=20
  admin.  Better still, don't run malware.
   
  Rich
   
  

    "Geo." <fake{at}barkdom.com>=20">mailto:fake{at}barkdom.com">fake{at}barkdom.com>=20
    wrote in message news:432858e3$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    Gee you make it sound so easy, if =
the admin=20
    owns the machine then activation is doomed to failure. Or is =
there some=20
    point to this "more tedious"?
     
    I guess the users' =
firewall doesn't need=20
    to be as secure as the copy protection, huh?
     
    Geo.
    

      "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:432844cb{at}w3.nls.net...
         You
can't keep out =
the admin for=20
      several reasons.  You can make it more tedious but it would =
be=20
      nothing more than window dressing.  The admin owns the =
machine. =20
      Also, if there is any UI to allow a user to configure the =
software, which=20
      clearly needs to exist, then there by definition is a means to =
make=20
      changes.
       
        
Basically, if =
malware is already=20
      running on a system it can do whatever the user account under =
which it is=20
      running can do.
       
      Rich
       

------=_NextPart_000_00BB_01C5B97B.9DCEAA10--

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