«

In article <q2ntf3->,
y says...
> Peter wrote:
> > thingy wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi All,
> >>
> >>One engineer will be experienced in Windows Security and that will be
> >>the main focus.
> >>
> >
> > The words 'windows' and 'security' are mutually exclusive.
> >
>
> Now Now...
>
> The simple answer is Windows can be made acceptably secure by following
> good practice.
>
> ie this is like MS saying oOo is 10 years behind the latest MS Office
> (it is not btw) so rubbish. What I will agree with is in a similar way
> to MS's security, oOo wont satisfy everyone (read paranoid), but it is
> good enough for most.
>
> The biggest problem for Windows security is the lack of capability of
> the people who look after the box. By this I dont mean Windows sys
> admins are crap, what I mean is most of the botnets are residential
> computers who's owners lack the capability to tie down the OS
> adequately. In fact you could add me into that I suspect, ie while I can
> lock Unix and Linux boxes down really tightly, I couldnt do the equiv on
> a MS OS.

NT can
Problem is the botnets are 98 machines that cant be
One more rason to ditch 98 (we are dumping the last of our 98 machines
in a coupla weeks, yay.)

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:17:14 +1200, y wrote:

> what I mean is most of the botnets are residential
> computers who's owners lack the capability to tie down the OS
> adequately.

IOW, they are clueless Windoze morons who think that because you get an
executable file sent to you from some complete stranger that they should
immediately run it to see how badly they can infect their computer. They
should not even be alowed to sit in front of a computer, much less switch
one on!


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
"The key benefit of open technologies such as open source software is
freedom of choice."