Slashdot Mirror
State of Colorado Calls Firefox Insecure, IE6 Safe
linuxkrn writes "The State of Colorado's Office of Technology (OIT) has set up a work skills website. The problem is that the site says 'DO NOT use FIREFOX or other Browsers besides IE. It has been decided that Mozilla based, non-IE browsers pose a security risk.' (Original emphasis from site.) If the leading IT agency for the State is making these uneducated claims, should the people worry about their other decisions?"
A more sensible approach might involve writing a well spoken, coherent, concise email. No reason to come across as a raving nutter - if someone is considering the "angry rant" approach, I'd suggest that perhaps what they are doing, is the opposite of help.
Ok, so explain why apache is less exploited than IIS. It is used far more.
Your little idea is cute and has been proposed by many before, and just like then it is wrong.
Also you should investigate your keyboard it seems to be broken.
I should check the IIS version. I have a sneaky suspicion that it's not up to date. Or maybe take a cue from Bobby Tables and throw some SQL injection attacks at the site.
No, you really should not do that.
Sheesh...
Interesting... stack trace displays are turned off by default from remote sites when using ASP.NET for security reasons. They had to explicitly turn them on to display this.
I doubt they are the best people to tell others about security...
Very poor odds. Working for a similar state government agency I can tell you the process probably involved atleast 10 weekly or monthly meetings to outline the basic content, a 2 month review process on the outline documentation for the page layout, a 6 month bidding process from prospective contractors to create the webpage, another couple months for a cost/benefit analysis, with the final decision that a frontpage license and either a new permanent position or an expansion of duties amendment (with associated raise) to one of their high up IT people would be the answer. Total time to create that webpage, probably a year and a half to two years.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Based on the speed at which things can get fixed by what are normally lumbering juggernauts when they are seen and reacted to by a million people on the Internet, I'd suggest that ten thousand angry rants are often much more effective than hundreds of extremely well spoken, coherent, concise emails.
In this case, a massive spew of vitriolic bile targetting squarely at the fools behind that miserably borked IIS site seems warranted, and is likely to be more effective than some pansy-assed coherent "Dear Sirs, I am writing to engage in a discussion concerning what appear to be some personal biases toward the fine products that Microsoft Corporation produces and their manifestation in a minor slight against Firefox, another fine product, on your web blah blah blah..."
Fuck that. Hoist the pitchforks! Ignite the torches! Geek wrath power ON!
Why are you linking that stuff here? You think anyone from and IT department that lauds the security of IE6 actually reads Slashdot? ;)
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
People like these bozos can insult our intelligence and we all are supposed to act politely and rationally.
I say that a few hundreds or thousands rabid replies from aggravated individuals would do wonders.
Sometimes politeness is seriously overrated...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.