If that's not the most freakin' retarded excuse for slack coding that opens up a giant security hole the size of Britt... Never mind that. But it's a huge hole regardless.
No no no kgiii, its not a security hole, its based on the user.
EDIT: Ive noticed something. On the first page of this thread, at the end of it, Ive posted a reply, with a quote in it. I did the same thing on the next page. And now I start it over, on the third page. Weird.
Indeed it is the user's fault. It just isn't even remotely smart of them...
I would (I would say "you would" but you might not) have hoped that with all the brilliant minds at Microsoft (and they have some of the best of the best) that one of them, just one of them, would have said... "You know what? End users really aren't known for being all that good at keeping themselves secure. Let's just set this one option to disabled by default just in case."
*sighs* It really is the end-user's fault. Those exploits wouldn't have nearly the impact they have if they'd do things like, oh, invest the time and effort in keeping their anti-malware applications updated. (And made sure that the providers of said applications are actually from reputable companies as opposed to the ones that were sent to them in SPAM or installed because they couldn't somehow resist clicking "yes" at the prompts.)
The pundits and zealots have tried to lay the blame at the feet of the OS vendor time and time again. The blame needs to be shifted to lay squarely on the heads of those people who are ultimately in control of what their PC does - the user or the administrator.
But, I digress and want to get this next section finished up and this isn't /really/ the section for off-topic stuff. If I get bored I'll split it to a different section later or tomorrow.
