No doubt, the last couple of viruses (msblast & sobig.f) are the results of MS systems bugs. I truely believe its NOT the issue here: While home users cannot be considered responsible to security issues, corporate admins MUST have (at least some) responsibility regarding the sucurity level of their systems. As an Open-Systems Admin in a large financial services company, I find it hard to understand what kind of SANE admin would leave his corporates' network gateway/firewall to The Net with tcp port 135 open (with or without a patch)??? what kind of a security-minded admin lets ALL attachments of ALL kinds into his/her domain? Even if all systems I manage were linux/unix/MVS/zOS/S390/whatever I'd still prevent corporate users from getting non-passive-content in (by mail, or by other means). Sounds insane? - well, for the last four years it worked for us, and as much as users dissagreed to our security policy in the first place, they are now (and for quite a while) blessing for it.
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt, the last couple of viruses (msblast & sobig.f) are the results of MS systems bugs.
I truely believe its NOT the issue here: While home users cannot be considered responsible to security issues, corporate admins MUST have (at least some) responsibility regarding the sucurity level of their systems.
As an Open-Systems Admin in a large financial services company, I find it hard to understand what kind of SANE admin would leave his corporates' network gateway/firewall to The Net with tcp port 135 open (with or without a patch)??? what kind of a security-minded admin lets ALL attachments of ALL kinds into his/her domain? Even if all systems I manage were linux/unix/MVS/zOS/S390/whatever I'd still prevent corporate users from getting non-passive-content in (by mail, or by other means).
Sounds insane? - well, for the last four years it worked for us, and as much as users dissagreed to our security policy in the first place, they are now (and for quite a while) blessing for it.