From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00B3_01C5B953.DDA661A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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_00B3_01C5B953.DDA661A0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   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 = change=20
something that an admin is intended to change then do not run as an =
admin. =20
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 owns=20
  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 to=20
  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 =
nothing=20
    more than window dressing.  The admin owns the machine.  =
Also, if=20
    there is any UI to allow a user to configure the software, which =
clearly=20
    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_00B3_01C5B953.DDA661A0--

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