Re: Windows Server 2003

[Sean Earp <smearp () mac com>]

Chris-

Well, "secure by default" means that it ships with NOTHING activated.  
IIS, etc is turned off, and Internet Explorer is virtually unusable out 
of the box (NO site is trusted, and you have to explicitly trust a site 
to download, or do just about anything).

Is it more secure out of the box than Windows 2000?  Sure.  Is it 
immune to common attack vectors such as Buffer overflows?  HECK NO!  
Windows Server 2003 was fully vulnerable to the exploit that the 
Blaster worm used, and according to news.com 
<http://news.com.com/2100-1009_3-5074008.html?tag=fd_top>, two MORE 
variations of the same security hole were just found, meaning that W2K3 
Boxes with the last RPC patch installed are STILL FULLY VULNERABLE TO 
COMPLETE TAKEOVER by a remote host.

Better than previous attempts?  Yes...   Secure? No.

Just my 2 cents...

-Sean


On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 05:37 AM, Chris Halverson wrote:

> What does everyone think of the hype around Windows Server 2003 being
>
> secure by default?   Has anyone implemented one in your environment?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Captus Networks 
Are you prepared for the next Sobig & Blaster? 
- Instantly Stop DoS/DDoS Attacks, Worms & Port Scans 
- Precisely Define and Implement Network Security 
- Automatically Control P2P, IM and Spam Traffic 
FIND OUT NOW -  FREE Vulnerability Assessment Toolkit 
http://www.captusnetworks.com/ads/42.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------