Full Version: Sprinter - WOE Problem

From: UncleSteve [#12]
 13 Jan 2007
To: Franklin (FW_HAYNES) [#10] 13 Jan 2007

I am not worried about Sprinter... I am worried that once you allow the access in IE, you no longer have the warning if another site tries the same thing with evil motives.

We have all mistyped a URL and ended up at a warez site or other site that is nothing but trouble, viruses, trojans, etc.

That is my concern with Brian's "Fix".... "just allow the clipboard access" by changing the settings.

I don't allow the access and still have no trouble logging in to WOE.

From: sprinter [#13]
 13 Jan 2007
To: ALL

I'm really glad that you all have so much interest in WOE to post things here about it and not on the WOE Forum.

It is microsoft and another bandaid type fix, it is really asking if you want to accept the security cookie. I can actually turn off the feature of notifying IE that we are using a security cookie feature, I felt that it should be left on to let the user know we are using a security feature to protect them.

Brian showed the fix, or you can always say yes to the prompt.

We are very serious about security on the WOE Forum and are using every protection we can for the Forum and our members. EE should take note for the security holes in Beehive that can jeopardize the forum and it's members to viruses attached to files or images added as attachments. On the WOE forum we have added server side security and virus protection to check all files to protect our members. The hosting companies DO NOT provide this type of protection, it must be added by the the individual domain holder. (Read as expensive to add).

We do not snoop your hard drive or have that ability as was suggested, we only use a security cookie to protect your password. EE uses Beehive cookies which are very weak and not secure at all.

EDITED: 13 Jan 2007 by SPRINTER

From: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#14]
 13 Jan 2007
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#6] 13 Jan 2007

quote:
I believe that this will disable copying from things on your computer and pasting them into the forum (or any other forum) window.


No it won't. If you re-read the setting, it is about progammatic access to the clipboard. Meaning web page code or applets automatically reading the clipboard on your computer. It's not related to you manually pasting from your clipboard.

I also see no relationship between this and cookies. Cookies are not stored in the clipboard.

From: UncleSteve [#15]
 13 Jan 2007
To: sprinter [#13] 13 Jan 2007

quote:
I'm really glad that you all have so much interest in WOE to post things here about it and not on the WOE Forum.


I believe my FIRST post about it WAS on your forum.... I won't ignore the same or similar questions here just because it is also being discussed on WOE......

If it is trying to put a security cookie on a system, that is what it should say just like many other sites do.

Cookies do NOT go on a clipboard. They are a small file that is downloaded, usually in the background. You should know that since you are a programmer.

As I said on BOTH forums, I am not worried about you and WOE, I just won't open up the machine to the world by changing the default in IE to blindly allow the access.

That is NOT a fix! That is sticking one's head in the sand like an ostrich.

From: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#16]
 13 Jan 2007
To: UncleSteve [#15] 13 Jan 2007

From: sprinter [#17]
 13 Jan 2007
To: UncleSteve [#15] 13 Jan 2007

It was not directed at you, it was directed at Harvey, and we all know why he posted it here and not on WOE.

From: UncleSteve [#18]
 13 Jan 2007
To: sprinter [#17] 13 Jan 2007

Seems to me that Harvey has been quite helpful to the members of WOE...

Answering questions, giving hints and tips, etc.

If there was anything behind his posting it here IN PUBLIC and not in the private folders, I don't think he would be so kind to your subscribers..

Don't try to read anything into something that doesn't exist.

From: sprinter [#19]
 13 Jan 2007
To: UncleSteve [#18] 13 Jan 2007

I agree, he is helpful, and I help here. The problem I have with his post is it should have been to me or posted on WOE. Why should the members on EE even be concerned about WOE.

Actually after thinking about it, I should thank him, when ever something is posted about WOE we always gain a few more new members B-)

EDITED: 13 Jan 2007 by SPRINTER

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20]
 13 Jan 2007
To: sprinter [#19] 13 Jan 2007

quote:
The problem I have with his post is it should have been to me or posted on WOE.


Ken,

The first post in this thread is addressed directly to you.

From: sprinter [#21]
 13 Jan 2007
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20] 13 Jan 2007

But why here? How many times do you see a post directed to anyone addressing another Forum? I actually find it amusing that he is so concerned about the well being of another forum.

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#22]
 13 Jan 2007
To: sprinter [#21] 13 Jan 2007

Ken,

That's a question only Harvey can answer.

Actually, I wondered the same thing.

From: LaZerDude (C_BURKE) [#23]
 13 Jan 2007
To: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#16] 13 Jan 2007

:-( Sigh

From: UncleSteve [#24]
 13 Jan 2007
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#22] 13 Jan 2007

I'm sure Harvey will answer when they close the store tonight.....

Until then :P

From: Mick [#25]
 13 Jan 2007
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#1] 13 Jan 2007

Not on my computer either

From: Franklin (FW_HAYNES) [#26]
 13 Jan 2007
To: ALL

Recently sent a copy of the window in question to a programmer friend of mine with sprinter's response as to what it was. UncleSteve is correct which means the line of bull that sprinter just fed us about security is just that...a load of bull.
I must say that the comment:
"Actually after thinking about it, I should thank him, when ever something is posted about WOE we always gain a few more new members B-) " makes Sprinter seem a little opportunistic.
All for friendly competition and a little banter between sites keeps everyone on their toes, but with the recent changes in WOE going to pay site and now with the this, Ken a.k.a. sprinter I don't feel can be trusted.
Thanks unclesteve for keeping us educated on this.

From: Franklin (FW_HAYNES) [#27]
 13 Jan 2007
To: sprinter [#21] 13 Jan 2007

"But why here? How many times do you see a post directed to anyone addressing another Forum? I actually find it amusing that he is so concerned about the well being of another forum. "
Go back and read the first post. He says he would click it off and it would keep popping up so that would stand to reason that he couldn't access WOE because of this. The only alternative was to address it here in hopes that you would see it. I also find it interesting that you responded here before in WOE on this situation even though by the time you responded here there were a few comments about it in WOE

From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#28]
 13 Jan 2007
To: UncleSteve [#7] 13 Jan 2007

I't not exactly a fix if it's not broken.
\
What I did was show people how to make a permanant choice so the popup didn't ask every time you logged in.


Sprinter removed the notification from the server to the browser, so it's a non issue now.

From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#29]
 13 Jan 2007
To: UncleSteve [#18] 13 Jan 2007

quote:
Seems to me that Harvey has been quite helpful to the members of WOE...


You're absolutely right...that's why I was surprised to see this here......

From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#30]
 13 Jan 2007
To: Franklin (FW_HAYNES) [#27] 13 Jan 2007

So what you're saying is that Sprinter is so sinister that he made sure a popup told everyone he was going to look at the content of their computers..........

EDITED: 13 Jan 2007 by RALLYGUY1

From: sprinter [#31]
 13 Jan 2007
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#30] 13 Jan 2007

I find this whole thing laughable. And some of the "expert" posts are really absurd. I don't visit as much anymore, I find to many mindless, vicious and childish posts that have no constructive value to anyone or the industry in general.

EDITED: 13 Jan 2007 by SPRINTER

Show messages:  1-11  12-31  32-51  52-57

Back to thread list | Login

© 2025 Project Beehive Forum