Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: Re: Pudent default security - Was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly
From: Steve Wray <steve.wray () paradise net nz>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:57:53 +1200
Ok ok, 'Compulsory windowing operating systems' as compared with operating systems whose windowing desktop has a non-windowing layer underneath (and, in case anyone hadn't noticed, (in the case of Linux at least) has perfectly adequate 'office' type desktop). I know that there are some nice tools for doing remote and bulk admin for the latest iterations of the Windows operating system, but from what I've seen, they lack maturity and often cause more trouble than they help prevent (DCOM? Am I right? Does anyone leave remote registry on?)
From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of Michal Zalewski On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Steve Wray wrote:There is if you don't use a windowing operating system; this is precisely what my team is doing for a very large collection of firewalled boxes, remotely administered and their forewall configurations all maintained and audited by remote controland en masseto boot.Oh please... We are talking about desktop environments and LAN "blob networks"... and Windows is on almost every desktop. If you work for a company that either never used this system, or could easily migrate to another system that works better for them, consider yourself very lucky. In such a case, you do have powerful remote control, backup, auditing and maintenance tools, and it's easy to come up with a solution that suits you best. On Windows, however, it takes some serious work to do the same, and it's often cheaper to buy a product that has the same functionality and a nice GUI.
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: Pudent default security, (continued)
- Re: Pudent default security Paul Schmehl (Sep 28)
- Re: Re: Pudent default security Jay Sulzberger (Sep 28)
- Re: Re: Pudent default security Ed Carp (Sep 29)
- Re: Re: Pudent default security Jay Sulzberger (Sep 28)
- Re: Re: Pudent default security Ed Carp (Sep 29)
- Re: Re: Pudent default security Jay Sulzberger (Sep 28)
- Re: Re: Pudent default security Shannon Johnston (Sep 29)
- Re: Pudent default security - Was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Michal Zalewski (Sep 29)
- RE: Re: Pudent default security - Was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Steve Wray (Sep 30)
- RE: Re: Pudent default security - Was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Michal Zalewski (Sep 30)
- RE: Re: Pudent default security - Was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Steve Wray (Sep 30)
- RE: Re: Pudent default security - Was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly j (Sep 30)
- RE: Re: Pudent default security - Was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Frank Knobbe (Sep 30)
- Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Florian Weimer (Sep 28)
- Soft-Chewy insides (was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly) Curt Purdy (Sep 28)
- Re: Soft-Chewy insides (was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly) George Capehart (Sep 29)
- Re: Soft-Chewy insides (was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly) Michael Scheidell (Sep 29)
- Re: Soft-Chewy insides (was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly) George Capehart (Sep 29)
- Re: Soft-Chewy insides (was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly) Michael Scheidell (Sep 29)
- RE: [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Curt Purdy (Sep 28)