«

In article <>,
says...
> When I walk through the lobby of my bank, I see Windows screen savers
> running on some computers and Windows menu screens on others. I know my
> bank has never heard of MacIntosh or Linux. I hesitate to think how many
> spybots and viruses might lurk in those machines.

In all the years I've managed and designed computers and networks I've
never had a compromised machine on our networks or our clients networks
when we were in charge of the network.

A bank is going to be locked down more than you would imagine, and much
more than any non-banking corporate environment.

Windows is easy to manage, secure, and keep bug free in a controlled
environment. Since about half the of the business servers and more than
half of the workstations are running Windows I would not sweat it.

--
--

(Remove 999 to reply to me)

Leythos wrote:
>
> In all the years I've managed and designed computers and networks I've
> never had a compromised machine on our networks or our clients networks
> when we were in charge of the network.
>
> A bank is going to be locked down more than you would imagine, and much
> more than any non-banking corporate environment.
>

Oh really? Why did many ATM's go down during LSASS and DCOM worms?

> Windows is easy to manage, secure, and keep bug free in a controlled
> environment.

The crux of your statement is "controlled environment." By playing
games with semantics (which I'm certain you will do), the statement is
incredibly vague, and thus meaningless.

> Since about half the of the business servers and more than
> half of the workstations are running Windows I would not sweat it.
>

Um no, you sir, are what we call a zealot. Trusted Solaris, Trusted
HP-UX, now those are relatively secure.

As far as workstations, I've run across HP-UX and QNX frequently, in
more mission critical applications than the pedestrian desktops in the
offices.

Why do think DOCKMASTER was run on Trusted Multics until 1998?

michael

In article <YSZ9d.626$ t>,
says...
> Um no, you sir, are what we call a zealot. Trusted Solaris, Trusted
> HP-UX, now those are relatively secure.

If you think that HP-UX is secure then you've been missing all of the
alerts they put out this year.

I'm not a zealot, I manage thousands of machines across the country, and
have not had any problems with them - 90% of them are Windows systems.

--
--

(Remove 999 to reply to me)

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:26:05 GMT, I found this from Leythos
<> :

>In all the years I've managed and designed computers and networks I've
>never had a compromised machine on our networks or our clients networks
>when we were in charge of the network.

I work in a big bank. We use Linux, for security reasons.
I wonder why?

George <> wrote:

>>In all the years I've managed and designed computers and networks I've
>>never had a compromised machine on our networks or our clients networks
>>when we were in charge of the network.
>
> I work in a big bank. We use Linux, for security reasons.
> I wonder why?

Because your IT staff prefers Linux?

Linux isn't safer just because it's not made by MS - you have to spend
as much time in setting up a secure Linux machine as you'd have to with
Windows. Besides, I've yet to see a good way for Linux to deploy
configuration settings and patches like it can be done with Windows
using ActiveDirectory and SUSServer/SMS

Juergen Nieveler
--
There is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole.

Leythos wrote:

> In article <YSZ9d.626$ t>,
> says...
>> Um no, you sir, are what we call a zealot. Trusted Solaris, Trusted
>> HP-UX, now those are relatively secure.
>
> If you think that HP-UX is secure then you've been missing all of the
> alerts they put out this year.
>
> I'm not a zealot, I manage thousands of machines across the country, and
> have not had any problems with them - 90% of them are Windows systems.
>

Sorry but *BSDs are far easier to secure not to meantion reliable. I always
minumize the amount winblows servers I control...

I am not a zealot, I am a realist.

-- Michael