DAMNED Re: Fedora Security and the Uverse 3800HGV-B router

[JD]

On 07/02/2011 06:40 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 07/02/2011 05:48 PM, JD wrote:
>> I do understand why you are so shrill in defending
>> javascript, and resorting to cussing and name calling.
>> Apparently it is your bread and butter :)
> JD, if one or two people here were insisting that you're wrong, and that
> javascript can't do what you say it's doing, I'd be encouraging you to
> continue as you are.  As it is, every single person responding to you is
> insisting that you're wrong and that javascript can't do what you claim.
>    I have to say that at this point the odds are that you are, alas,
> wrong.  You probably don't agree with me, but the evidence seems to be
> against you.  Not only that, you've been asked, more than once, to back
> up your opinion with facts and have failed to do so.  At this point, it
> might be best if you accept that you misunderstood what was happening
> and simply consider this discussion to be a learning experience.
Well Joe, people in general will always believe in the faith
that modern priests of the professions preach, weather or
not the people know or understand the details of that faith
or not.

As I just responded, that at the very least, pushing on the
user code to be executed by the user's machine, without
the user's knowledge that it is being done, and without the
user's knowledge of what is being done, is the very definition
of invasion of privacy, if not the  definition of security threat.
As I said, the "troubling history" of javascript security holes
should be enough to lead security and privacy minded people
to reject the assertion that it is safe.
How could anyone judge an intruder into the house as safe
and friendly just on the insistence of  the priests of the javascript
say it is so?

Were not nuclear power plants pushed on us as perfectly safe?
Yet, their promoters insist that they are and that any examples
of disasters of nuclear power plants are only bugs to be worked
out.
And how many times did windows have to be so easily attacked
by the simplest of means, yet MS kept insisting that overall, it
was a safe operating environment?

It is all based on vested interests who stand to profit from something
that is pushed and marketed as safe. Like so many drug companies
that pushed and still push drugs with deadly side effects.

At the very least, javascript should be blocked just because
it is invasive!

Cheers,

JD