Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: Re: Pudent default security - Was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly
From: j <frobozz () frotz us>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:33:35 -0400
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 05:57, Steve Wray wrote:
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?)
Active Directory. Domain Administrator. Group Policy. These things are easy to handle in a properly built corporate Windows network, all centrally, with a single 'wave of the hand'. In theory, at least. ;^) The same is certainly NOT true of the masses of end-user boxes barfing 3 million pings/hour out their broadband. As the report (accurately) points out, that is the weak point, where the resource (shiny new P4 on a cable modem) is run by a clueless 'user'. They don't want to, shouldn't need to, and often can't, keep up with the required effort to secure their computer. They'd rather throw $30 at it ('personal firewall') and hope/assume. And Linux isn't the solution for them either, nor Mac - as a group they're unlikely to understand ANY platform enough (or even care enough) to handle it 'properly'. "In any sufficiently large group of people, most are idiots." j MCP. Defenestrator. Cynic. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: Re: Pudent default security, (continued)
- 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)
- RE: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Jonathan A. Zdziarski (Sep 27)