|
Home > Archive > Server 2003 > July 2003 > Patch for Windows Server 2003
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Patch for Windows Server 2003
|
|
|
|
| ghaouf 2003-06-08, 8:10 pm |
| a patch already that is one reason windoes sucks | |
| jeff_j_black 2003-06-09, 4:15 pm |
| The patch is for Internet Explorer, not Windows Server 2003. Also the default 'secure' configuration of IE on Windows Server 2003 is not suceptible to the problem, only if you dummy down the 'secure' settings in IE.
I think it's time to get past the constant 'Windows sucks because it needs security patches' mind set. All O/S and applications are subject to various security issues, it's just that Windows is a bigger target, thus it gets more attacks and more attention in the press. I get many security update emails and everything has its flaws. | |
| limsam 2003-06-17, 3:31 am |
| I think it's time to get past the constant 'Windows sucks because it needs security patches' mind set. All O/S and applications are subject to various security issues, it's just that Windows is a bigger target, thus it gets more attacks and more attention in the press. I get many security update emails and everything has its flaws
But MS releases a patch every week | |
| jeff_j_black 2003-06-17, 8:29 am |
| Would you rather they did not?
What bullet proof O/S are you running?
My response to the posts above was due to the fact that they were deriding Windows Server 2003 for needing a patch when in fact it did not. The patch was for Internet Explorer. If the users of 2003 did not alter the default behavior of the Internet Explorer, product they would not have needed that patch at all. | |
| Tarzanboy 2003-06-17, 11:09 am |
| OpenBSD.  Too bad all of the peripheral software that comes with it needs at least a patch a week...
Cheers,
TB | |
| jeff_j_black 2003-06-17, 12:14 pm |
| Hey, I'll say openly that I like Linux or heck I wish I had my VIC20 or Atari 800xl. I don't like Macs that much, but can work on them if needed. But if you were to specify a couple of different Linux platforms for an entire enterprise, you would be busy keeping the various packages patched, up to date and protected, not to mention new kernel roll-outs. I am just hard pressed to believe that people who spout off about Microsoft patches, are actually running something that doesn't need a little tweaking every so often. | |
| Tarzanboy 2003-06-17, 1:08 pm |
| For all of the security by obscurity, poor coding ad nauseum, the one nice thing about Windows is that Windows Update does make it very simple to try and keep a system up to date. Which reminds me to check to see if Bugtraq is still on the spam email list here...
Cheers,
TB | |
| limsam 2003-06-18, 10:50 pm |
| The fact is: MS product are far inferior to unix/Linux counterparts. That does not mean than Unix/Linux do not have bugs.
The reason MS is slow is that it is high in graphics.
The same will become true for Linux/unix if they try the same crisp graphics with Linux/unix.
Why MS is less secure? Because they don't bother. They know they can sell it well. | |
| Tarzanboy 2003-06-19, 2:45 am |
| Linux can be more secure than Windows, however often it is even less secure, thanks to the multitudes of "little things" that surround Linux. For instance, you have buffer overflows, escalators, administrators that have no idea what inetd.conf is, people surfing around the internet on the system's root account, unshadowed passwords and hey, we haven't even gotten into any GUI, more or less the killing fields of X yet!
A poorly configured "secure" system is just as bad, if not worse than a well configured "insecure" system. At least with known insecurity, mindful administrators tend to keep careful eyes on what is going on with those systems and find countermeasures for the issues they encounter. Often poorly secured "secure" systems are administered by people that don't know what they are doing wrong and make assumptions that "this system is secure" and head off to the wonderful land that is obliviousness.
Cheers,
TB | |
| limsam 2003-06-19, 4:05 am |
| Linux can be more secure than Windows, however often it is even less secure, thanks to the multitudes of "little things" that surround Linux. For instance, you have buffer overflows, escalators, administrators that have no idea what inetd.conf is, people surfing around the internet on the system's root account, unshadowed passwords and hey, we haven't even gotten into any GUI, more or less the killing fields of X yet!
I accept 100 %. | |
| btroadman 2003-06-28, 10:57 pm |
| I COMMEND Microsoft for releasing patches, hotfixes, service packs, security updates, etc. Microsoft is the only company that releases information about its own security holes so you can FIX them before it is an issue. They have teams that work on security full time to make it a better, more secure product. You will never see that from Novell. The problem with their patches is they expect people to update their systems and keep up with "Administration", instead people just complain and say "Microsoft Sucks". I am sorry that people are so closed minded and don't appreciate what we are given. | |
| radup70 2003-07-08, 12:50 pm |
| I COMMEND Microsoft for releasing patches, hotfixes, service packs, security updates, etc. Microsoft is the only company that releases information about its own security....
do you work for Microsoft? | |
| btroadman 2003-07-08, 1:54 pm |
| No I do not work for Microsoft, I am employed for a local Florida Government and as an outside contractor for another SW Florida organization. I am just glad to see that such a large company is keeping up with the changes in technology and are willing to share their weaknesses in order to bridge gaps. | |
| jeff_j_black 2003-07-08, 2:42 pm |
| btroadman...
Right on! Exactly my point. | |
| radup70 2003-07-08, 4:26 pm |
| hmmmm......
I guess we see a new born religion here. (people who think Micro$oft realy cares about security or for its customers for that matter) | |
| jeff_j_black 2003-07-08, 4:46 pm |
| radup70...
quote:
What bullet proof O/S are you running?
| |
| Tarzanboy 2003-07-08, 5:35 pm |
| The powerful troll springs forth from beneath the behemoth bridge of life, demanding tribute...
I use an Atari 400XL, doesn't everyone?
Cheers,
TB | |
| btroadman 2003-07-08, 6:41 pm |
| I know Microsoft really cares about its Product and their reputation. I am not saying that MS is part of the trinity, but where is the Novell team that constantly updates their software? Oh that's right, forget about service packs, just upgrade to a new version and relicense all your servers if you want those bugs fixed. The facts are simple, all Operating Systems have flaws, Microsoft has more because people do more with MS than with any other OS. And let alone the SUBSTANTIAL market share they have. And it feels really good to know that in a decade, there will be an upgrade path to a newer Microsoft product and I'm not stuck on Novell 6.0 for the next 30 years because they stopped making NOS'. | |
| radup70 2003-07-08, 10:26 pm |
| It doesn't make any sense to argue with any priest of any religion....
did I ever mentioned Novell? There are other OSes in use besides Novell and M$, far more stable and flexible. If you don't know them it doesn't mean they do not exist.
or do you know everything?
btroadman are you sure you're not on M$ payroll? You should be.... | |
| radup70 2003-07-08, 10:32 pm |
| can anybody explain me why do you need a grafical interface for an HTTP server? or for a file server?
Do you realy need ActiveX for a SMTP server? | |
| Tarzanboy 2003-07-09, 3:03 am |
| Due to your recent indulgence in purveying inane, rhetorical questions, feel free to enlighten us, the lowly proletariat, with the merest purlieu of erudition.
Cheers,
TB | |
| btroadman 2003-07-09, 8:50 am |
| I am a CNA and LPI also, I just don't advertise it. Currently I have 65 Win2k servers and 20 or so Netware 4.11, 5, and 6.0 boxes, and a half dozen Unix of different flavors on my network. Running AD and NDS. I don't know it all, or anywhere near. I mentioned Netware because it is the only comparable NOS out there to Microsoft. Linux will eat up the Unix shares, and as Novell tries to migrate to a Linux platform, what customers they had left will sooner Migrate to MS. As the Sun Microsystems fades out and the HP and IBM Linux arrives we will be left with two source for our Networks. If you disagree then give a call to the VP of Novell Chris Stone and a quote from IT Weekly just 2 months ago:
"There are two main platforms that will exist in five years' time: Microsoft and Linux," |
|
|
|
|