<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Internet Explorer 7 Security</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dmiessler.com/blog/internet-explorer-7-security/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dmiessler.com/blog/internet-explorer-7-security</link>
	<description>in search of intervals</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:37:56 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-bleeding</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://dmiessler.com/blog/internet-explorer-7-security#comment-1534</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:35:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/archives/547#comment-1534</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I guess the argument (for changing security layers instead of upgrading the buggy or insecure features)is that the more shady sites will bork because they use SSL1.0 or 2.0... but like the article says, it's easy to add in SSL3.0 or TLS&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess the argument (for changing security layers instead of upgrading the buggy or insecure features)is that the more shady sites will bork because they use SSL1.0 or 2.0&#8230; but like the article says, it&#8217;s easy to add in SSL3.0 or TLS</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.151 seconds -->
<!-- Cached page served by WP-Super-Cache -->
