, SecurityFocus 2000-05-01
Security companies can make headlines by using the right jargon, even when it's wrong.
Expand all |
Post comment
A couple of comments
2000-05-01
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Re: A couple of comments
2000-05-01
Elias Levy <aleph1 (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]> (1 replies)
Elias Levy <aleph1 (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]> (1 replies)
Re: A couple of comments
2000-05-01
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Re: A couple of comments
2000-05-01
Elias Levy <aleph1 (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]> (3 replies)
Elias Levy <aleph1 (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]> (3 replies)
Re: A couple of comments
2000-05-02
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Re: A couple of comments
2000-05-02
Elias Levy <aleph1 (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]> (1 replies)
Elias Levy <aleph1 (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]> (1 replies)
Re: A couple of comments
2000-05-02
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Re: A couple of comments
2000-05-02
Elias Levy <aleph1 (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]>
Elias Levy <aleph1 (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]>
I suppose Mr Levy is correct, though...I just don't see the difference between a default password that was "accidently" left in place, and one that was purposely put there, but never removed. In my mind, both would allow someone with knowledge of that particular password to (potentially) circumvent security controls.
However, the article didn't focus on that issue...the article is about "security companies" that make bad word choices and spread FUD. Even though the article uses the plural "companies", only ISS is mentioned. Why is that?
H. Carvey
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/25/1591#1591