Is F9 Security an oxymoron?

[Ed Greshko]

Dave Feustel wrote:
> I ask this because I am having new and persistant problems with both
> Firefox and Konqueror running on 32-bit F9. The problems suggest DOS
> exploits, and I wonder just how these exploits are being implemented
> against the two browsers.
>   
You need to detail your problems for people to assist you. 
> I am pretty much of the conclusion that all operating systems can be
> cracked straightforewardly, mostly because of security holes in X11,
> which is becoming a requirement of effective computer use.
>   
Except for the fact that all systems, by default, have remote access for
X11 disabled and that any "home router" has that disabled as well.  Not
to mention that if you build your own firewall you always deny
everything and only allow what you need.
> Is anyone aware of legislation passed by Congress in 1995 mandating
> that ALL computers be remotely accessible regardless of OS running on
> the computer?  SMM services or Intel's VPro seem to be relevant here
>   
No....  But if you ask about legislation in the US Congress (I assume it
is US) then you should have the reference with the bill number and all. 
So, please post it so we could read it....even if we don't all live in
the US.

> I normally keep these thoughts to myself, but the increasing buginess of
> the two browsers on F9 is beginning to aggravate me. All this seems to
> have gotten much worse after I posted a review on Amazon of the book
> _Judaism Discovered_ by Michael Coffman. I bought the book after I
> discovered that the book had been banned by Amazon, the only book ever
> banned by Amazon.  Could I have pissed off someone by buying and/or
> reviewing the book? :-)
>   
Not having much problems here....but then again nobody is out to get
me....I don't think.
> Attempting to post this, I got a shell error: cannot connect to
> port 587. Connection Refused. 
>
>   
What are you using that uses the Mail Message Submission protocol?

-- 
Any excuse will serve a tyrant. -- Aesop