- Norton Internet Security
- Posted by Bobby on August 31st, 2003
I have recently installed a broadband connection on my PC. I purchased
Norton Internet Security to provide additional protection.
When I set-up NIS I did *not* choose the additional security provided by
separate accounts (for each user) but when I run the program it asks for the
supervisor's password. But I didn't set up a supervisor - nor set a
password.
Now I can't change or remove NIS. I can't even uninstall it using Control
Panel (this also asks for the supervisor's password). Neither can I
re-install it. Help!
Bobby
- Posted by Stig Bronson on August 31st, 2003
RTFM
It covers removing the password that clearly must have got set during
install.
Don't confuse accounts with the password which is a seperate set-up option.
It's covered and involves using the install disc to remove.
- Posted by Colin Wilson on August 31st, 2003
Not a clue tbh, but have you tried the obvious, like just hitting enter,
or trying your normal login password (if you have one), or "admin" ?
--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
or you are likely to be spam filtered :-}
- Posted by Geoff on September 6th, 2003
"Bobby" <bobby@europe.com> wrote in message
news:bislt6$v2i$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snip>
EVERYONE should change the default NIS password.
Having read your post in other group and having only recently installed NIS
2003 (*without* setting a password) I thought Behind Asterisks XP might be
of use. And it was.
I think it somewhat remiss of Symantec not to *force* a change of password
during install and/or first run of program.
Plse excuse me for crossposting now, but I'm interested to here other's
comments on this apparently insecure security application.
Geoff
- Posted by Colin Wilson on September 6th, 2003
Got a link ?
--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
or you are likely to be spam filtered :-}
- Posted by Colin Wilson on September 6th, 2003
Forget that, got it - pity they can`t even get their site to work
properly with Opera !
--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
or you are likely to be spam filtered :-}
- Posted by mto on September 8th, 2003
"Colin Wilson" <btiruseless@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19c3eae6baaff2fd989af7@news.individual.ne t...
Web design costs $$$ - lots of it. Businesses want to pay as little as
possible. It takes at least 2X (and sometimes way more) time to build a
site that works all the time exactly the same for everyone and can take more
space to boot. 95% of everyone uses IE. Most businesses figure if it works
in IE and isn't too bad in Netscape everything is good to go. Opera? Who
cares whether it works in Opera? 
- Posted by Stephen Poley on September 8th, 2003
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 07:31:46 -0400, "mto"
<nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.thanks> wrote:
This is largely a myth. Write a simple straightforward
standards-compliant site, and it will probably work with all browsers -
well, all browsers newer than NN4/IE4, anyway. What typically happens is
that companies spend large quantities of money on *preventing* a site
from working in all browsers by, for example, introducing large
quantities of pointless (and browser-specific) Javascript.
All the really complex aspects of building a web-site are server-side
(at least if built by competent designers) and thus have nothing at all
to do with which browser one uses.
--
Stephen Poley
Barendrecht, Holland
- Posted by mto on September 9th, 2003
"Stephen Poley" <sbpoley@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3m9plv4poltdb61vb8apsl2r5lkfs5tq49@4ax.com...
But that is just the point. Didn't you see my tongue in my cheek there?
If one knows the standards and knows how to hack out html that complies with
both IE's and Netscape's idiosyncracies it is pretty easy to turn out a
website that functions everywhere. But many, if not most, businesses are
absolutely positive (knowing nothing about web design and less about
marketing online) that the more bells and whistles the better. When you
start talking about making scripts work in both browsers, streaming media
and all those other bells and whistles we all shut off anyway, *then* you
start talking bucks. So they pay a bundle for stuff that doesn't do what
they need, more bundle to fix it, still more bundle to fix it again and
eventually give up and say to heck with anything but IE. Re server side
complexity, I don't find that particularly to be the case for the "average"
web site. Most of the time that is another myth.
- Posted by Stephen Poley on September 9th, 2003
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 21:05:01 -0400, "mto"
<nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.thanks> wrote:
Ah, no. Sorry.
Agreed; I should have said something like: if a site actually is doing
complex things, most/all of the complexity should be on the server.
--
Stephen Poley
Barendrecht, Holland
