From craigw@wpa.ce.com.au Mon Aug 26 10:53:27 1996 Received: from kyoko.mpx.com.au (new-kyoko.mpx.com.au [203.2.75.38]) by suburbia.net (8.7.4/Proff-950810) with ESMTP id KAA03295 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 10:53:00 +1000 Received: from enterprise.ce.com.au(really [203.23.60.2]) by kyoko.mpx.com.au via sendmail with esmtp id for ; Mon, 26 Aug 96 10:52:21 +1000 (EST) (/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.13 #30.8 built 5-oct-95) Received: from mac.ce.com.au by enterprise.ce.com.au with smtp (Smail3.1.30.13 #1) id m0uupui-001TeSC; Mon, 26 Aug 96 10:52:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.9.200.209] by mac.ce.com.au (8.6.10/200.8.1.3) id KAA26332; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 10:49:58 +1000 Message-Id: <199608260049.KAA26332@mac.ce.com.au> To: "best-of-security@suburbia.net" Subject: Re: BoS: Re: Gaping Security Hole Date: Mon, 26 Aug 96 10:55:53 -0500 From: Craig X-Mailer: E-Mail Connection v2.5.03 -- [ From: Craig * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- Firstly...if WIN95 was some secure system, than maybe it would have password autentications over the network. Secondly...if you are not able to get past the screen saver on Windoze, than you have alot to learn re windoze (lack of) security. NT is certified as a STAND ALONE system, re securty. 95 is totally insecure. Find a REAL security threat -------- REPLY, Original message follows -------- >croyston@netcom.com (Chris Royston) writes: >> >>This was a "feature" of the early beta copies of Windows 95. It allowed >>a way of killing the screensaver incase of a system lockup. This was >>fixed in the original "final" version of Windows 95. I guess the >>workaround is to get a non-beta copy of Windows 95.