hello everybody? Is it possible to secure my web browser with some user name
and password, so no one else me can surfing the internet.
On my work, when I go home, some users log in to my pc and the surf all
around?
how can I solve this problem

Thanks

Robi

"Robi" <korosec28@email.si> wrote in message
news:XkZAb.6413$2B6.1225569@news.siol.net...
Logout before you go home. Either that, or change your password to one that
everyone else doesn't already know.

Good first steps..

--

Hairy One Kenobi

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
in the first place. So there!

There exist "application password" softwares. Unfortunately, I don't recall
the name of any particular one.

One of those might work for you; google to find them.

CET


"Robi" <korosec28@email.si> wrote in message
news:XkZAb.6413$2B6.1225569@news.siol.net...

"CETroutman" <skorpion@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:vt9bnrsho25nfd@corp.supernews.com...
I recently found some on download.com cant remeber the name of the one i did
get but it allows you to run apps but the machine is locked, useful for
rolling demos in stores etc.

--
Mimic

"Without Knowledge you have fear, With fear you create your own nightmares."
"There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand Binary,
and those that dont."
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but
when you do, it blows away your whole leg"

"Robi" <korosec28@email.si> wrote in message news:<XkZAb.6413$2B6.1225569@news.siol.net>...
Well, "Internet Explorer" and "security" is perhaps the most perfect
example of an oxymoron. That said, one option (in Win2000 or XP) is to
create a user account for the family and disable access to IE. Use
help to find info on creating account and "policy editor" to 'remove
access rights' to a particular application. If I had time right now
I'd go into it a little more.

Sponge
Sponge's Secure Solutions
www.geocities.com/yosponge
My new email: yosponge2 att yahoo dott com

"Hairy One Kenobi" wrote
in newsh_Ab.2166$Jd7.16086@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net:
Well, that assumes Dan is actually using a secure version of Windows.
If Jon is using a 95-based version of Windows, security is a bad joke.
All a user needs to do is hit the Esc button to bypass the login.
Logging only only allows a user access to their <username>.pwl file
which is a cache of passwords. So the rogue user can still get into
Windows without logging in per se, they won't be able to use your
passwords from your .pwl file, but they'll still be able to do
everything else that you can do. Jon needs to be using an NT-based
version of Windows to provide secured login.

Jon never bothered to mention what operating system he uses. Maybe Jon
believes applications should provide the security rather than the
operating system. Not!


--
__________________________________________________ __________
*** Post replies to newsgroup. E-mail is not accepted. ***
__________________________________________________ __________

"CETroutman" wrote
in news:vt9bnrsho25nfd@corp.supernews.com:
The one that I recall reading about (but haven't used) is Abtrusion.
Usually a Google Groups search on "abtrusion" will find posts from users
talking about it and other security products that regulate the launch of
applications. Another product was called something System Safety
Monitor (SSM).

The point of these programs is not to regulate that the user cannot use
them. It regulates that they are even allowed to start. Some personal
firewalls have application rules for programs. If a program attempts to
connect then a prompt asks the user if it is okay to let that program
make the connection. (I never use the auto feature in Norton's firewall
since *I* want to be the one dictating what programs can connect and to
what computers and using what protocols. I consider the auto-rule
feature hazardous.) Products like Abtrusion and SSM prevent dormant
trojans from executing on your system. Only those programs that are
listed as safe are allowed to load. So the firewall can restrict which
program gets to connect while Abtrusion restricts what program can even
load. I don't recall reading in Abtrusion's description that you can
password protect the load of a program. It isn't meant to usurp the
login security already provided by an NT-based version of Windows.

Now that I think of it, Norton's Internet Security has its Parental
Control feature in which you can dictate which users can run programs
within a "category" of software. Categories are web browsers, e-mail,
general, etc. So you could move the firewall's application rule for
Internet Explorer into the web browser category, if not there already,
and dictate which level of user can run programs listed in that
category. Well, it won't regulate whether or not that type of user can
run the program but it will restrict whether or not that program can
make a connection through the firewall. I haven't used the accounts
feature under the Parental Control portion of Norton's Internet Security
so I can't tell you how to use it.

I'm sure there are other products out there that allow similar
functionality. Don't the CyberPatrol and other parent-regulating
programs also regulate who can make connections? If not, they probably
let you choose to blacklist some site and allow all others, or to
whitelist only allowed sites and all others are blacklisted. So choose
the option to allow access only to whitelisted sites - and then don't
bother listing any sites in the whitelist. You've basically blacklisted
everything and whitelisted nothing. Supposedly you can create accounts
or associate setting "environments" per user account or maybe per user
group (if the product support NT-based Windows user accounts and
groups).

"Robi" <korosec28@email.si> wrote in
news:XkZAb.6413$2B6.1225569@news.siol.net:


Password protected screensaver?

"*Vanguard*" <no-email@post-reply-in-newsgroup.nix> wrote in message
news:zU9Bb.471511$Tr4.1304472@attbi_s03...
It's normally a little more complicated than that (the Novell login is a
little harder to get around, but can be done on Win95, assuming that your
timing's pretty good ;o)

The frightening aspect is that you're almost certainly right - that people
are still happily using a non-Y2k OS that may (or may not!) cause them to
lose or corrupt data in the future.

Agreed. (Incidentally, you missed the Unicenter suite of stop-that-happening
agents. A minor oversight, given the cost..)

H1K

"Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in
news:EUfBb.63$Qk.47@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net:

There are many reasons why many people are still using older OSes, and I
don't see why you characterize that as "frightening."

There has been a Y2K patch available for Win95 for years.

One of the main reasons why people continue to use these so called outdated
OSes is that they resent the intrusiveness and bloat of later Windows OSes,
and the steady, solid march toward DRM, TCPA, and Uncle Bill Gates having
complete and total control over their computers.

"donutbandit" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:br55t9$pmv$1@news.snowcrest.net...
News to me (the patch, that is) - a friend's Win95 laptop [don't ask!]
thinks it's the 1970s.

The frightening bit was about the potential data corruption. You're not
bothered if you lose stuff? That's fine.. many are.

H1K

"Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in
news:d5tBb.565$rr3.3915@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net:

I'm not sure what your angle is. Both Win98 and ME were 100% Y2K compliant,
and Win95 could be patched.

Data loss because of non-Y2K could happen, but that would only be a problem
with the earliest unpatched versions of Win95.

I even have a version of CP/M that knows it's 2003.

"donutbandit" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:br706s$5fc$2@news.snowcrest.net...
Both failed tests, from what I can remember. A patch sorted out most of the
problems on Win98, but not 95.

Looking again at the MS site, I see that a further Y2k patch appears to have
been released in late 2001 - is that the one that you're referring to? Like
many people, I suppose, I didn't try to run with an OS known to be broken
for nearly two years..(note: I'm only referring to the Y2k stuff, not the
other broken bits ;o)

Can I also assume that this has never occured as a critical update? Because
if it has, then it doesn't work fully.. can't remember the exact test -
something involving a standard property box that gets the date (rather
obviously) wrong.

Nice to see that someone's still using it! I sometimes miss my old CP/M 3
box (but not the room that it used to take up!)

Can't say I'm too surprised that it's Y2k-compliant, though - so was LEO.
One place I worked (back in 1992), it was a dismissible offence to write
non-Y2k code.. shame MS and assorted Unix vendors weren't quite so savvy.

H1K

"Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in
news:V7FBb.194$FN.88@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net:

You'd be surprised. Check out comp.os.cpm