Full Disclosure mailing list archives

RE: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1


From: "Schmehl, Paul L" <pauls () utdallas edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:18:24 -0500

You're not allowed to participate.  Only the geniuses that think they
have it figured out already. :-)

Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/



-----Original Message-----
From: Blue Boar [mailto:BlueBoar () thievco com] 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 12:15 AM
To: Schmehl, Paul L
Cc: Jeroen Massar; Tobias Oetiker; full-disclosure () lists netsys com
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] MS should point 
windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1


Schmehl, Paul L wrote:

I just curious how you geniuses would solve this problem.  
You have a 
multi-six figure scientific instrument, which is only 
manufactured by 
one vendor in the entire world.  Your research department 
depends upon 
that instrument to do research for which they are being funded 
handsomely by grants and expected to produce results.

There's only one problem.  The instrument requires that you run 
Windows 2000 Server with IIS, and the vendor requires that you not 
apply *any* patches post SP2.  The government certifies the 
equipment 
at a certain patch level, and if the equipment is patched then the 
certification no longer applies, the research is no longer 
funded and 
you are now staring a six figure boat anchor.
<snip>
2) Minus points if you say "Don't allow access to the Internet.  It
*requires* access to the Internet.  (IOW, it has to be able 
to connect 
to "live" IP address ranges, not private IPs.)

What *kind* of Internet access?  Any reason I can't put a 
firewall or proxy 
of some sort between it and the Internet?  Maybe an IDS 
running as a router?

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


Current thread: