OT: Unfortunately, there are just too many people in the work force, be they
developers, admin, or exec, just don't appreciate
the security and risk has drastically changed
gone are the "simple good old days" ( don't get me wrong, there are
still many good folks around but there is a substantial increase of
motivated bad bunch around)
These "non security conscious" people may still think,
I never had problem before, so I won't have any problem now or
later, after all we only deal with people we know.........
or
I just want to get my job or business done quickly, don't put up
security road blocks
I hear too many:
What, I have to login another ID to install/administrate PC even I rarely
need that capability? I want an all powerful ID so I can anything I want. I
am the BIG BOSS. and I am careful....Don't tell me security
Then once in while I get calls to restore PC, program functionalities from
these people
the most laughable or sad part, once in while, they will ask how come you
did not tell me about the risk. and I had to smile and say, I tired but you
did not want to hear
> The mind boggles as to why you want to do this: and any process assuming the
> correctness of the initials is flawed: if I wanted to do something naughty
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> > is a generic password and the last 3 are there initials. How can I do
> > that?
Cor Ligthert[MVP] - 20 Mar 2008 07:10 GMT
GS,
But does that make you the person to be responsible for security.
We are developers, giving the tools, while we use for that as possible the
what is common.
Passwords are well embeded in the world community now and we know why we use
it.
As we do it in another way, we become responsible for the security with
possible behaviour to us, that is not in our responsibility. Let the
managers do their job, they often earn more than developers.
Just my opinion.
Cor
> OT: Unfortunately, there are just too many people in the work force, be
> they
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>> > is a generic password and the last 3 are there initials. How can I do
>> > that?