Philip Thiem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for the clarification. I had posted that I thought it was FUD,
> but my language
> was _too_ strong. Yeah, that makes sense, but it was presented to me
> on such a wide scale,
> that it didn't make sense to me.
The key is that random users sho
Philip Thiem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Recently a friend made the assertion that I want to get some feed back on:
>
> "if you connect to an x server you have access to the protocol stream
> of any other user also connected to it"
I believe that this is more or less correct.
If you can conne
Thanks for the clarification. I had posted that I thought it was FUD, but
my language
was _too_ strong. Yeah, that makes sense, but it was presented to me on
such a wide scale,
that it didn't make sense to me. Would it be correct this this is about as
severe,
as have a root user at all. (Bec
It was FUD. Some silly people had a default policy on xwin that didn't
have any host or authenication restrictions. Sorry to bother you all.
Philip Thiem
--On Monday, October 04, 2004 06:39:00 PM -0500 Philip Thiem
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Recently a friend made the assertion that I want to
Recently a friend made the assertion that I want to get some feed back on:
"if you connect to an x server you have access to the protocol stream of
any other user also connected to it"
I couldn't get him to clarify at the time, but as a broad statement it
seems dubious (particularly the IT dept
h
5 matches
Mail list logo
