Prev: Windows mail asks for certificate confirmation
Next: GHD MK4 Hair Straighter
From: Leythos on 1 Aug 2010 07:27
In article <A090AD23-0A9B-4ECD-977D-8F8D6D6D96CB(a)microsoft.com>,
CMElec(a)discussions.microsoft.com says...
> My attitude is MS must be willing and able to secure its OS from malicious
> activity or it isn't worth having and I'll switch to something else
> permanently.
>

The you won't be using ANY OS as there is no secure OS on the planet
that works well as a server or workstation.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Joe on 1 Aug 2010 11:17
On 01/08/10 12:27, Leythos wrote:
> In article<A090AD23-0A9B-4ECD-977D-8F8D6D6D96CB(a)microsoft.com>,
> CMElec(a)discussions.microsoft.com says...
>> My attitude is MS must be willing and able to secure its OS from malicious
>> activity or it isn't worth having and I'll switch to something else
>> permanently.
>>
>
> The you won't be using ANY OS as there is no secure OS on the planet
> that works well as a server or workstation.
>

I think you and Larry know what he means: sufficiently secure to be
useful as a public server.

There are a great many Internet servers out there, and while not a
single one is completely, absolutely, 100% secure, they are sufficiently
secure that they can typically run for days, weeks, months or years
without compromise while exposed to the planet's crackers.

SBS can never be made that secure, and Microsoft have never pretended it
can. You yourself were fond of pointing out that ISA on SBS2003 was not
certified secure, whereas it was when installed on a dedicated firewall
using Windows Server 2003.

--
Joe
From: Leythos on 1 Aug 2010 12:53
In article <Geg5o.7$lF5.4(a)hurricane>, joe(a)jretrading.com says...
>
> On 01/08/10 12:27, Leythos wrote:
> > In article<A090AD23-0A9B-4ECD-977D-8F8D6D6D96CB(a)microsoft.com>,
> > CMElec(a)discussions.microsoft.com says...
> >> My attitude is MS must be willing and able to secure its OS from malicious
> >> activity or it isn't worth having and I'll switch to something else
> >> permanently.
> >>
> >
> > The you won't be using ANY OS as there is no secure OS on the planet
> > that works well as a server or workstation.
> >
>
> I think you and Larry know what he means: sufficiently secure to be
> useful as a public server.
>
> There are a great many Internet servers out there, and while not a
> single one is completely, absolutely, 100% secure, they are sufficiently
> secure that they can typically run for days, weeks, months or years
> without compromise while exposed to the planet's crackers.
>
> SBS can never be made that secure, and Microsoft have never pretended it
> can. You yourself were fond of pointing out that ISA on SBS2003 was not
> certified secure, whereas it was when installed on a dedicated firewall
> using Windows Server 2003.

I don't believe that ANY server is secure if you're doing anything with
it, even a dedicated firewall server that isn't part of a domain.

I do believe that you can limit exposure by installing a good qualify
firewall, but the OP said NAT ROUTER, not firewall, so that means there
is no protection.

We've already seen how DNS can be compromised on Windows based systems,
why anyone would face Windows DNS to the public is a mystery to me. At
best, a dedicated linux box, stripped, running DNS and facing the public
through a firewall appliance....

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Windows mail asks for certificate confirmation
Next: GHD MK4 Hair Straighter