Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?
From: "Jos Osborne" <Jos () meltemi co uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:19:36 -0000
It doesn't address the issue. The requirement is that some MS customers need to patch without putting the machine on the internet. For whatever reasons. Is that such an unreasonable request? Geo.
Sorry to sound incredibly dense, but if the machine in question is never being connected to a network does it really need securing/patching? Jos _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?, (continued)
- Re: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Daniele Muscetta (Mar 17)
- Re: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Guido van Rooij (Mar 18)
- Re: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Geoincidents (Mar 17)
- Re: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Simon Richter (Mar 17)
- RE: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Geo. (Mar 17)
- RE: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Nick FitzGerald (Mar 17)
- RE: [inbox] Re: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Curt Purdy (Mar 17)
- Re: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Jeremiah Cornelius (Mar 17)
- Re: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 17)
- RE: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Geo. (Mar 17)
- RE: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Nick FitzGerald (Mar 17)
- RE: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Geo. (Mar 17)
- Re: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 17)
- RE: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Nick FitzGerald (Mar 18)