This has to be one of the most blatant abuses of administrative ignorance that I have ever seen. I'm the global UNIX administrator for one of the largest lawfirms in the U.S. and although I dislike the whole Windows platform, it's staffing impotence like this that gives Windows 2000 a bad rap.
Windows 2000 can be secured just as easily as XP, and is by far more secure than Win98 or ME. The decision to use XP over Windows 2000 displays the lack of research and outright lack of thought that went into the decision to make students replatform their machines.
Simple restriction of services on Windows 2000 (like mandating "No IIS servers permitted") could remove most of the current exploits. This is a network administration issue that has obviously been solved by using a crutch instead of educating students and enforcing policies.
Weak, and pathetic.
UCSB should take some time to establish proper guidelines for use of Windows 2000 on the networks and create acceptable use policies that permit them to take action if there is negligence involved.
How do the administration plan on handling FreeBSD, Linux, QNX, PocketPC, and MAC OS-X users...? Back of the Bus?
Slashdot Mirror
Simple restriction of services on Windows 2000 (like mandating "No IIS servers permitted") could remove most of the current exploits. This is a network administration issue that has obviously been solved by using a crutch instead of educating students and enforcing policies.
Weak, and pathetic.
UCSB should take some time to establish proper guidelines for use of Windows 2000 on the networks and create acceptable use policies that permit them to take action if there is negligence involved. How do the administration plan on handling FreeBSD, Linux, QNX, PocketPC, and MAC OS-X users...? Back of the Bus?