I must say, I'm much happier with my previously ivory linux server being black and red, my beige G3 now black and silver. The only downside other than uniqueness is that black paint tends to show dust a lot sooner than beige. --
Rent an ap. In most instances I'd say hell no, as I've noticed many of the posters say.
For me, the OS, my HTML editor, image manipulation, word processor, spreadsheet and my various utils are essential. I need the media at least until xDSL comes through my area. Finally, with as much as i use these apps daily, i want the unlimited use license.
Sounds familiar right. But here's where i see the benefit of *some* rent an app offerings. Take WebTurboTax this past year. My taxes, thus far, are not complex. I don't pay capital gains, I don't itemize. As such, my use for tax software is roughly once a year. I want to use it once, get the refund money from the feds and the state, etc.
After that, MY usefulness for that software ends until April 13, 2000 comes around.
In cases like this and similar cases I'm sure exist for many if not most users, rent an app makes sense. --
My conclusion is the exclusion of Microsoft was meant to speak volumes. Or, "Win 98/NT is a known insecurity as a whole. As such, we won't devote resources to rediscover a known problem."
Perhaps Microsoft (if hell freezes over) will see what this means. Serious administrators concerned about security will/should shy away from using Win 95/98/NT for mission critical operations and networking where security is a concern. Then, when they are serious about beefing up security, they won't run windows2000test.com. Instead they'll allow independent and open review of their security system and network protocols. After all no one seems to trust an un publicly tested encryption algorhythm.
Only after Microsoft has taken the serious step to more secure networking, do I think they'd be worthy of the scanning effort.
The similarity I'm drawing on this is that these guys are, in effect, casing servers. Now the good or bad of the facts is something else.
I've come up with a few thoughts:
1) This seems to be beneficial information on the general state of security on the Net (poor)
2) Any sysadmin smart enough to check logs and not be lulled feeling secure should use this as a further wake-up call to review their services. Do they really need non SSH telnet services running? How are those firewall settings?
3) There are those out there who will always take things the wrong way.
I'm interested in seeing where this project ends up. With RC5 like support, or in jail like Mitnick.
Slashdot Mirror
I must say, I'm much happier with my previously ivory linux server being black and red, my beige G3 now black and silver. The only downside other than uniqueness is that black paint tends to show dust a lot sooner than beige.
--
Rent an ap. In most instances I'd say hell no, as I've noticed many of the posters say.
For me, the OS, my HTML editor, image manipulation, word processor, spreadsheet and my various utils are essential. I need the media at least until xDSL comes through my area. Finally, with as much as i use these apps daily, i want the unlimited use license.
Sounds familiar right. But here's where i see the benefit of *some* rent an app offerings. Take WebTurboTax this past year. My taxes, thus far, are not complex. I don't pay capital gains, I don't itemize. As such, my use for tax software is roughly once a year. I want to use it once, get the refund money from the feds and the state, etc.
After that, MY usefulness for that software ends until April 13, 2000 comes around.
In cases like this and similar cases I'm sure exist for many if not most users, rent an app makes sense.
--
My conclusion is the exclusion of Microsoft was meant to speak volumes. Or, "Win 98/NT is a known insecurity as a whole. As such, we won't devote resources to rediscover a known problem."
Perhaps Microsoft (if hell freezes over) will see what this means. Serious administrators concerned about security will/should shy away from using Win 95/98/NT for mission critical operations and networking where security is a concern. Then, when they are serious about beefing up security, they won't run windows2000test.com. Instead they'll allow independent and open review of their security system and network protocols. After all no one seems to trust an un publicly tested encryption algorhythm.
Only after Microsoft has taken the serious step to more secure networking, do I think they'd be worthy of the scanning effort.
The similarity I'm drawing on this is that these guys are, in effect, casing servers. Now the good or bad of the facts is something else.
I've come up with a few thoughts:
1) This seems to be beneficial information on the general state of security on the Net (poor)
2) Any sysadmin smart enough to check logs and not be lulled feeling secure should use this as a further wake-up call to review their services. Do they really need non SSH telnet services running? How are those firewall settings?
3) There are those out there who will always take things the wrong way.
I'm interested in seeing where this project ends up. With RC5 like support, or in jail like Mitnick.