*sigh*
quote:
Originally posted by kabso 5
Well, it should be the same in my opinion and don't open any link from any contact that you don't trust and do not accept file transfer from them too.
That thought process should be the same, but the reality is that it is certainly not the same for most people. Also, the possible protection methods are not the same. Each feature has its own specific problems and thus needs its own specific solution.
quote:
Originally posted by kabso 5
At least allow links that contain youtube.com google.com /vb/ /forum/.jpg /gif
As said, that would solve absolutely nothing, not in the slightest way.
Second, you are still seriously forgetting that MS can NOT magically make new features and let them materialize out of thin air on your PC. However, disabling the hotlinking is something they can control remotely, without the need for you to update and installing anything new. Anything else you ask for are full fledged features which does require at least a forced update (and which you probably will complain about too). And you seem to still forget that most WLM users are people who are not tech savy, much younger, behave in a different way accordingly, and use WLM differently.
quote:
Originally posted by kabso 5
and about the script how its going to cause any problem, it will be marked so you can click or type, and If you typed, the link will disappear..
So each time you are typing something, everything will be removed because the contact happened to send you a link? I'm afraid what you suggested isn't going to work and will be even more annoyingly than what it is suppose to fix.
quote:
Originally posted by kabso 5
anyway, I like the idea of a shortcut key to open the last URL posted in the convo, but I guess it'll make the computer slow because the script will have to search the convo for it and I sometimes talk for hours so it would be a huge convo
Even with your proposed method (copying it in the typing area) the script needs to 'search' for the link in each send message too, there is absolutely no difference. The length of the convo doesn't matter either.
But this said, this searching is instant. In fact, the script would need to do quite a lot more when it was created to copying the links in the typing area. Simply grabbing the last received url and making it available for opening in a browser by a shortcut is only a matter of milliseconds and a very few lines of code.
quote:
Originally posted by kabso 5
they said that they will still be upgrading WLM 2009 and WLM 2011 and updating their features so is the Plus5! will work in both 09 and 11?
yep, of course, why wouldn't it? You can read all about it in the proper threads.
----------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by V@no
Do you really believe that people who see such security popups all the time (poor vista users) actually pay attention to them and not automatically clicking accept? really??? When you see someone sends you a file do you go on 10 minutes discussion about the file before you decide to accept and what do you do when you receive it? going through virustotal.com to make sure it's clean? - I doubt it. This argument is so weak...
Errr... you just provided the reason why MS took the decision to disable hotlinking...
quote:
Originally posted by V@no
And besides, since we already established that the links generated on MS server side, your example of spoof would not work, because program that parses the link would see that it's not youtube. So allowing common/safe websites pass through is a simple solution and would not rise up hell as current solution.
Quite wrong though. That is not a simple solution at all because there is no way to see if a link is good or malicious; a link can look ok, but in fact point to malicious data. That's the whole point of the complete disabling of links... But you aren't seriously suggesting for the MS's servers to download each and every link they come across to check if they file is safe or not prior to sending it to your contact do you??? That would take ages in that case and file transfers would become virtualy useless. Not to mention the problems it can bring with false positives and the massive temporary storage needed and the rediculus amount of processing power needed for all the milions of transfers each day.
PS: But Spunky was replying to kabso's suggestion to allow links which contain stuff like "youtube.com" (kabso's own words). Of course Spunky knows that
www.something.com/youtube.com/virus.exe is not a real youtube link, but such a link is what kabso suggested (it contains youtube.com, but it can be malicious though).
Either way, links are not checked by Microsoft, all they did (and all they could do without forcing you to do an update (weeks later after the facts no less)) was disabling the hotlinking in conversations.
quote:
Originally posted by V@no
P.S.
several times I've received invalid youtube links since this nonsense started because MS replaced some characters in the url with * - now, this is unacceptable BS!
There is no reason why they would do that, and this is also the very first thing I hear about that and I'm closely following this whole issue, but maybe I'm missing something here...
quote:
Originally posted by V@no
Here is another idea for these who's willing to help: A float window (or attached to the chat windows, or accessible via hotkey, whatever) that would show list of links from conversation.
Have you read Spunky's second post in this thread? He already gave the link to an existing script which does that.
----------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Thor
Interesting. I wonder what other policy settings that are available to Microsoft's disposal.
winks, file transfer, display pictures, dynamic backgrounds, photo sharing, phone, voiceim, voicemail, plugins, camera, audio, sharing folders, signature sounds, location PSM, ... to name most of them, maybe with a few exceptions.
----------------------------------------------
Don't get me wrong people. Yes, at times I find it annoying too that they are disabled. But you may not forget that the average user is not someone with a very big knowledge about security and what not. So, yes, they do need protection from themselfs in this particular situation. Also, a lot of your rants are based on assumptions, nothing more. The truth is quite often completely different.
Bottom line is that this protection IS the only thing they could have done and it is a very sensible one which hasn't been taken lightly for that matter. In fact, they even did you a favor by not forcing you to upgrade to WLM 2011 or providing you with a forced update for WLM 2009 (which wouldn't be possible to make so quickly anyways <- another thing sometimes forgotten).
So, yes it is annoying, and yes MS sometimes do stupid stuff (imho)... but in this case, taking in account the limitations they have, the severity of the threat, and the average WLM user, I fully support this decision, in all of its aspects.
----------
PS: footose, can you resize your wireshark screenshots a bit? They are screwing up the thread layout.
/ 
