haabarter.blogg.se - Symantec mac will not open

#SYMANTEC MAC WILL NOT OPEN HOW TO#
#SYMANTEC MAC WILL NOT OPEN MAC OS X#
#SYMANTEC MAC WILL NOT OPEN INSTALL#
#SYMANTEC MAC WILL NOT OPEN UPDATE#
#SYMANTEC MAC WILL NOT OPEN SOFTWARE#

I have tried to explain to them why this is not a good idea, but their argument is always, "We haven't had any problems yet.if you don't like it then rewrite it yourself." One step that Microsoft is taking is to require Certified Partners to adhere to the best practices, which include not requiring root privileges to run the software (unless of course the program is an OS service or other administrative related application that requires root by definition). I manage a group of offshore foreign software engineers and they will use VBScript to run FTP with the shared directory mapped to the root of the C drive using the domain administrator account over the Internet. It's been there since Windows NT, although the configuration was different in NT. If it's possible, then it is *very* fucking new.

In the "Startup type" select box, select "Automatic".

Select the "This account" radio button.

Right-click on the service and select "Properties".

Repeat 17-19 for the "Log on as a service" right.

Enter the name of your new user and click "OK".

Right-click on a right that you need to run your service and select "Properties".

Double-click on "User Rights Assignment".

Repeat 9-11 for each group you need to add.

Enter a name of a group you need to run the service.

Select the "Password never expires" checkbox.

Select "New User." from the "Action" menu.

*not* the system account) and have it start when the system boots *without* the user it is supposed to run as logging in at the console? How do you build a windows service (that's a daemon for you unix folks but it needs to be specifically built and installed to work properly), have it run as an unprivileged user (i.e. I always run as a non-privileged user, and I am getting sick of applications that have no reason to need administrator privileges not running correctly. In summary, Microsoft provided the ability to make the system more secure using non-privileged accounts and groups like every other major OS, but application developers are not taking advantage of it. This needs to change developers need to start using the Windows multi-user environment correctly. The only program that I've see actually try to do something about this is Nero, which has a program to set up a group to enable burning by non-administrator accounts, but even this is a special download that is not part of the regular install.

#SYMANTEC MAC WILL NOT OPEN UPDATE#

Why do I have to be an Administrator to run a game? Bad programming, that's why! Not even Norton AV gets this right (scheduled scans do not run for non-administrators and a non-administrators are told that Live Update is off even if it is actually turned on). Windows has been multi-user for years, and application developers still haven't caught up.

#SYMANTEC MAC WILL NOT OPEN HOW TO#

Microsoft is to blame for much of the security issues, but also a major part of the problem is third-party developers! It would help if application developers would realize that Windows is a multi-user system and actually follow Microsoft's reference guides for how to program in this environment instead of forcing the user to be an Administrator to actually use their program. Now as far as local security goes, I agree with you there are some nasty local security exploits. In SP1, all you needed to do was turn on the firewall for a connection in the Network Connections control panel. The XP firewall is turned on by default in XP2. My point is that Windows needs special steps to be _protected_ Īctually, in SP2 it doesn't.

Although both configurations were probed by attackers, neither was compromised during the two weeks. Hacking an OS X box is HARD.Īs well as Windows XP SP2, fared much better. You are not going to see a flood of crippling, disabling OS X attacks like you see every couple of months with Windows viruses that take out our whole email system at work from time to time. Apple has a great record on security in OS X. Am I right?įurthermore, the buffer overflows in quicktime do not afford an attacker root priviledges, do they? And when vulnerabilities are found, Apple, unlike Microsoft, so far anyway, has a great record of fixing them immediately. The QuickTime ruse you refer to no doubt requires some social engineering to make work.

#SYMANTEC MAC WILL NOT OPEN MAC OS X#

Which one will be hacked? My point is that Windows needs special steps to be _protected_ Mac OS X requires special hacking and other circumstances to become _vulnerable_.

#SYMANTEC MAC WILL NOT OPEN INSTALL#

Now install Windows and connect to the Internet. Try this experiment: install OS X and connect to the Internet.

I just think (and this is not a contradiction) that the system is very secure out of the box. I didn't say there were no _potential_ bugs or vulnerabilities in the system.