<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Markus Ranum: An Idealist To A Fault</title>
	<atom:link href="http://danielmiessler.com/blog/markus-ranum-an-idealist-to-a-fault/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/markus-ranum-an-idealist-to-a-fault</link>
	<description>grep understanding</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 02:15:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/markus-ranum-an-idealist-to-a-fault/comment-page-1#comment-1458</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:54:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/?p=502#comment-1458</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;As long as you allow unproven code to run, you&#039;re at risk of running something dangerous. If you&#039;re more selective about what you allow to execute, you&#039;re safer.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Surely this isn&#039;t practical for all users in all areas at all businesses. But there are places where it makes a whole lot of sense. For example, why wouldn&#039;t you want your firewall box to refuse to run, say, MS Outlook with VBA macros allowed to auto-run? Or anything else you didn&#039;t manually install and enable, for that matter?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Just because the solution - exactly as specified - is frequently impractical does not mean that all parts of it are worthless all the time. Sounds to me like an ideal worth pursuing, even if you know you won&#039;t always get there.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m with you, though, on the vulerability scans (should we do away with crash-testing of cars, and rely instead on the theoretical soundness of the engineering?) and the lessons to be learned by studying exploits.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As long as you allow unproven code to run, you&#8217;re at risk of running something dangerous. If you&#8217;re more selective about what you allow to execute, you&#8217;re safer.</p>

<p>Surely this isn&#8217;t practical for all users in all areas at all businesses. But there are places where it makes a whole lot of sense. For example, why wouldn&#8217;t you want your firewall box to refuse to run, say, MS Outlook with VBA macros allowed to auto-run? Or anything else you didn&#8217;t manually install and enable, for that matter?</p>

<p>Just because the solution &#8211; exactly as specified &#8211; is frequently impractical does not mean that all parts of it are worthless all the time. Sounds to me like an ideal worth pursuing, even if you know you won&#8217;t always get there.</p>

<p>I&#8217;m with you, though, on the vulerability scans (should we do away with crash-testing of cars, and rely instead on the theoretical soundness of the engineering?) and the lessons to be learned by studying exploits.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/markus-ranum-an-idealist-to-a-fault/comment-page-1#comment-245532</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/?p=502#comment-245532</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;As long as you allow unproven code to run, you&#039;re at risk of running something dangerous. If you&#039;re more selective about what you allow to execute, you&#039;re safer.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Surely this isn&#039;t practical for all users in all areas at all businesses. But there are places where it makes a whole lot of sense. For example, why wouldn&#039;t you want your firewall box to refuse to run, say, MS Outlook with VBA macros allowed to auto-run? Or anything else you didn&#039;t manually install and enable, for that matter?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Just because the solution - exactly as specified - is frequently impractical does not mean that all parts of it are worthless all the time. Sounds to me like an ideal worth pursuing, even if you know you won&#039;t always get there.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m with you, though, on the vulerability scans (should we do away with crash-testing of cars, and rely instead on the theoretical soundness of the engineering?) and the lessons to be learned by studying exploits.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As long as you allow unproven code to run, you&#8217;re at risk of running something dangerous. If you&#8217;re more selective about what you allow to execute, you&#8217;re safer.</p>

<p>Surely this isn&#8217;t practical for all users in all areas at all businesses. But there are places where it makes a whole lot of sense. For example, why wouldn&#8217;t you want your firewall box to refuse to run, say, MS Outlook with VBA macros allowed to auto-run? Or anything else you didn&#8217;t manually install and enable, for that matter?</p>

<p>Just because the solution &#8211; exactly as specified &#8211; is frequently impractical does not mean that all parts of it are worthless all the time. Sounds to me like an ideal worth pursuing, even if you know you won&#8217;t always get there.</p>

<p>I&#8217;m with you, though, on the vulerability scans (should we do away with crash-testing of cars, and rely instead on the theoretical soundness of the engineering?) and the lessons to be learned by studying exploits.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

