«

It seems to get discussed fairly frequently about securing a box is all
about the admins ability.

Well a close friend of mine, and BSD/Linux admin for a living, decided
to setup a Windows box for serving some game or other, and not once, but
twice got blaster(two tries)... it appears that he didn't realise that
Windowsupdate existed, or how to shut off remote services in windows, weird.

Now I must say that Im pretty much the other way inclined, Windows
security is easy to me, BSD/Linux on the other hand confuses me.

Anyway, the machine is now up and running, fully patched, and doing the
miniscule(reletive) amount of traffic that it is meant to be, instead of
the 24Mbit constant it had flooded the rest of the network with.


I've since passed him my Linux box and got him to update it, and show me
how, and I introduced him to Windowsupdate, services and firewall etc.

Dave - Dave.net.nz said the following on 8/02/2005 12:43 p.m.:
> It seems to get discussed fairly frequently about securing a box is all
> about the admins ability.

> I've since passed him my Linux box and got him to update it, and show me
> how, and I introduced him to Windowsupdate, services and firewall etc.

Now thats the way to go, symbiotic relationships, not ****ing on each other.



--
>>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!
================================================== ====================
| Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
================================================== ====================
"I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine......
However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:00:54 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:

> Dave - Dave.net.nz said the following on 8/02/2005 12:43 p.m.:
>> It seems to get discussed fairly frequently about securing a box is all
>> about the admins ability.
>
>> I've since passed him my Linux box and got him to update it, and show me
>> how, and I introduced him to Windowsupdate, services and firewall etc.
>
> Now thats the way to go, symbiotic relationships, not ****ing on each other.

wheres the fun in that?
surely an all out war to end wars should be called
--

Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:02:23 +1300, froggy wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:00:54 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:
>
>> Dave - Dave.net.nz said the following on 8/02/2005 12:43 p.m.:
>>> It seems to get discussed fairly frequently about securing a box is all
>>> about the admins ability.
>>
>>> I've since passed him my Linux box and got him to update it, and show me
>>> how, and I introduced him to Windowsupdate, services and firewall etc.
>>
>> Now thats the way to go, symbiotic relationships, not ****ing on each other.
>
> wheres the fun in that?
> surely an all out war to end wars should be called

and it will still come down to useabilaty vs what a nerd thinks is useable.

--
-------------------------------------
Steven H (.net geek)
Third Year, B.I.T. Otago Polytechnic

Collector»NZ wrote:
>> It seems to get discussed fairly frequently about securing a box is
>> all about the admins ability.

>> I've since passed him my Linux box and got him to update it, and show
>> me how, and I introduced him to Windowsupdate, services and firewall etc.

> Now thats the way to go, symbiotic relationships, not ****ing on each
> other.

well ****, I want to learn, he just wanted to get this games server up.

froggy wrote:
>>Now thats the way to go, symbiotic relationships, not ****ing on each other.

> wheres the fun in that?
> surely an all out war to end wars should be called

ummm, he's like 1/3 my size... and not really the war like type.
he prefers FPS, I prefer RTS, never the two shall meet.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 12:43:32 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

> Well a close friend of mine, and BSD/Linux admin for a living, decided to
> setup a Windows box for serving some game or other, and not once, but
> twice got blaster(two tries)... it appears that he didn't realise that
> Windowsupdate existed, or how to shut off remote services in windows,
> weird.
>
> Now I must say that Im pretty much the other way inclined, Windows
> security is easy to me, BSD/Linux on the other hand confuses me.

Yeah, being a good admin involves getting your head around the 'local
customs', and not trying to manage things like you did elsewhere.

A similar disaster can also happen when skilled Windows admins find
themselves on a SBS machine for the first time. They can easily screw
things up by managing it like a normal Windows server and not using the
wizards for practically everything.

I'm comfortable with Windows, Linux and OpenBSD servers but when I had to
do a bit on Solaris I felt like fish out of water.

--
Cheers
Anton

steven wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:02:23 +1300, froggy wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:00:54 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dave - Dave.net.nz said the following on 8/02/2005 12:43 p.m.:
>>>
>>>>It seems to get discussed fairly frequently about securing a box is all
>>>>about the admins ability.
>>>
>>>>I've since passed him my Linux box and got him to update it, and show me
>>>>how, and I introduced him to Windowsupdate, services and firewall etc.
>>>
>>>Now thats the way to go, symbiotic relationships, not ****ing on each other.
>>
>>wheres the fun in that?
>>surely an all out war to end wars should be called
>
>
> and it will still come down to useabilaty vs what a nerd thinks is useable.
>

mozilla or mozilla ?

Collector»NZ wrote:
> Dave - Dave.net.nz said the following on 8/02/2005 12:43 p.m.:
>
>> It seems to get discussed fairly frequently about securing a box is
>> all about the admins ability.
>
>
>> I've since passed him my Linux box and got him to update it, and show
>> me how, and I introduced him to Windowsupdate, services and firewall etc.
>
>
> Now thats the way to go, symbiotic relationships, not ****ing on each
> other.
>
>
>
Side by side on pianos like michael and paul

Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
> It seems to get discussed fairly frequently about securing a box is all
> about the admins ability.
>
> Well a close friend of mine, and BSD/Linux admin for a living, decided
> to setup a Windows box for serving some game or other, and not once, but
> twice got blaster(two tries)... it appears that he didn't realise that
> Windowsupdate existed, or how to shut off remote services in windows,
> weird.
>
> Now I must say that Im pretty much the other way inclined, Windows
> security is easy to me, BSD/Linux on the other hand confuses me.
>
> Anyway, the machine is now up and running, fully patched, and doing the
> miniscule(reletive) amount of traffic that it is meant to be, instead of
> the 24Mbit constant it had flooded the rest of the network with.
>
>
> I've since passed him my Linux box and got him to update it, and show me
> how, and I introduced him to Windowsupdate, services and firewall etc.

When Bill Gates says (or used to say) Windows is easy to install, he is
right, (its no easier than Linux). As usual its a half truth, building
is pretty easy, what it takes is someone who; wants to, and can secure
the box (whether they do not know how, are not given time/tools etc).

I know of a recent external security audit on a company, which the main
site passed. A subsidary run by "guru's" failed, while they had the
capability to patch and maintain easily they did not. It was I guess
beneath them, something I have noticed too much in olde unix people,
complacancy mixed with arrogance.

www.cisecurity.org has a good linux hardening howto document, I am in
the process of in-corporating it into a rh kickstart build...I will post
how to on my web site when done.

regards

Thing