Scott Anderson #2 (3/15/2013)
Jim P. - I also thought that more secure meant less useable, until I realised that we are looking at securing the wrong way. Instead of the Accept\Reject model (ie. user name\password great for computer to break, bad for human to remember) why not be more human like and security via reference and familiarity. You do totally lose privacy and the system "knows" you but you do get a much more secure and useable environment.They all promote a model where an intruder can only get so far unless they actually are you.
Have you ever seen nthe XKCD[/url] view?
Setting the screensaver to 10 minutes (which can be a conversation time with a coworker) by group policy and a lockout policy is about ridiculous. The other side I had an Access DB that processed many GB of data overnight. I forgot to lock my desktop before I left for the night. I just had to move the mouse to bring the desktop up.
I had near admin level access.
But if you had to enter four words to get to your desktop each time -- the user will find a way to subvert it. But making the password so odious, the user will find a way to subvert it.
----------------
Jim P.
A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.