From what I've learned, the general rule is NEVER to put a Windows machine directly on an unsecure network.
If you put a Windows machine on a network,
you just made your network insecure.
If you have to deal with networks
that have Windows boxen on them (that would be most of us), even if they
are behind a hardware firewall, you better
be running iptables on your Linux boxes that
are also on that network.
Hmmm, and what would this new model of protection entail? Something like Cisco proposed?
From the analysis:
When users participating in the best security practice that can be reasonably expected get infected with a virulent and damaging worm, we need to reconsider the notion that end user behavior can solve or even effectively mitigate the malicious software problem and turn our attention toward both preventing software vulnerabilities in the first place and developing large-scale, robust and reliable infrastructure that can mitigate current security problems without relying on end user intervention.
Folks, we don't need any more infrastructure to
prevent worms. We don't need any more infrastructure to control what you can and can't do
on the Internet.
It's not the Internet that causes the problems,
it's the in-secure machines that are vunerable.
I sometimes have this feeling Microsoft would do ANYTHING to go back in history and try to get all the laws of our country re-written and the market changed so this kind of all-secret world I speak of could exist.
Just a feeling? Seems like that is happening today.
It may be pennies to MS, but they are stubborn
and have bought off another politician to spew
BS.
From the Toronto Star
"This ruling is yet another example of the EU assaulting a successful American industry and policies that support our economic growth," said U.S. Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Microsoft's home state, Washington.
This is really about MS controlling the world.
See, MS already won a fight against USA.
(The towel was thrown in from the corner).
MS has made so much of the world dependent
upon MS, that they can basically be accused of
global blackmail these days. They control the
code, but more importantly, they control the
bug fixes, which apparently are always lacking.
Yes, they *could* fix the exploit holes, but
MS can exert *much* more control by *NOT* fixing
the exploits.
If you have a LAN or WLAN to deal with, and
there is an MS machine on it, you should be
concerned about the security of your non-MS
machines that are also on that [W]LAN *EVEN IF*
the [W]LAN is behind a firewall-router.
The odds are good this will be moderated down
by the MS astroturfers. Prove me wrong dudes!
Re:I wouldn't worry too much about that...
on
SCO Aims For The Feds
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
SCO sent the letter to every member of the Senate and House of Representatives, said Blake Stowell, a SCO spokesman.
And since most of those reps hopefully realize your point,
I'd say, SCO just sent a wake-up call.
In other news, this is just your semi-random FUD stuff that you should expect to continue until
November.
"The key for customers is getting these patches down," Muglia says. "The biggest issue right now is that when we issue a patch, it can take them weeks to get it installed after they're done testing it. We want it done right away."
Yeah, right. The customer is not going to test
first because Microsoft says it's ok?
But it probably won't defrag the harddrive.
As for cleaning out the mal-ware, can anyone
tell the difference between the OS and 3rd party
stuff?
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. Keep non-BB.
How about the possibility that the current state of Mars is the near-end result of excessive global warming.
I believe you can find plenty of examples, but SCO does come to mind.
It could indicate that MS knows that the SCO FUD has failed.
I sit corrected.
# whois www.Tyranny.net
No match for "WWW.TYRANNY.NET".
Apparently already toppled.
There is and was no legitimacy about it. The bottom line is this was an un-declared war directed by a puppet president and never approved by Congress.
If you put a Windows machine on a network, you just made your network insecure.
If you have to deal with networks that have Windows boxen on them (that would be most of us), even if they are behind a hardware firewall, you better be running iptables on your Linux boxes that are also on that network.
It's just a matter of time until...
(scenario deleted for security reasons)
From the analysis:
When users participating in the best security practice that can be reasonably expected get infected with a virulent and damaging worm, we need to reconsider the notion that end user behavior can solve or even effectively mitigate the malicious software problem and turn our attention toward both preventing software vulnerabilities in the first place and developing large-scale, robust and reliable infrastructure that can mitigate current security problems without relying on end user intervention.
Folks, we don't need any more infrastructure to prevent worms. We don't need any more infrastructure to control what you can and can't do on the Internet.
It's not the Internet that causes the problems, it's the in-secure machines that are vunerable.
SuSE even runs on mainframes .
They had no choice, the MS shredder had crashed.
Just a feeling? Seems like that is happening today.
From the Toronto Star
"This ruling is yet another example of the EU assaulting a successful American industry and policies that support our economic growth," said U.S. Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Microsoft's home state, Washington.
No, it's the lack of HydroCarbons.
Here's a reason.
This is really about MS controlling the world. See, MS already won a fight against USA. (The towel was thrown in from the corner). MS has made so much of the world dependent upon MS, that they can basically be accused of global blackmail these days. They control the code, but more importantly, they control the bug fixes, which apparently are always lacking. Yes, they *could* fix the exploit holes, but MS can exert *much* more control by *NOT* fixing the exploits.
If you have a LAN or WLAN to deal with, and there is an MS machine on it, you should be concerned about the security of your non-MS machines that are also on that [W]LAN *EVEN IF* the [W]LAN is behind a firewall-router.
The odds are good this will be moderated down by the MS astroturfers. Prove me wrong dudes!
And since most of those reps hopefully realize your point, I'd say, SCO just sent a wake-up call.
In other news, this is just your semi-random FUD stuff that you should expect to continue until November.
Maybe they *are* going for broke.
And he's of the same party as Bush. Speaking of Oil ...
The airlines are already suffering, but this?
And now, the #2 Al Qaeda leader is surrounded by the Pakistani military.
Note, that's not US forces. That could be a good thing.
Truly sad to watch this administration. At first, I thought it was a huge conspiracy, but maybe they really are that incompetent.
"The key for customers is getting these patches down," Muglia says. "The biggest issue right now is that when we issue a patch, it can take them weeks to get it installed after they're done testing it. We want it done right away."
Yeah, right. The customer is not going to test first because Microsoft says it's ok?
But it probably won't defrag the harddrive. As for cleaning out the mal-ware, can anyone tell the difference between the OS and 3rd party stuff?
Well said. Your points are exactly the reasons that I have no desire to work on non-free software.
Dept. of Homeland Security, meet Dept. of Homeland In-Security.
Certainly.
That seems to be overly generous.