BLAG

BLAG Forums
It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:02 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:34 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 4:45 pm
Posts: 621
Location: London
noldrin wrote:
Actually Windows server 2003 is probably the best they'll ever be. That OS has some pretense of security on a default install.

MS has actually done this before on sound cards to disable people being able to rip audio stream from their PC. So far no one has gone for it.


No way. Windows Server 2003 is only secure when not networked to any other machine, no keyboard or mouse plugged in and no power cable. Of all the IT support stuff I do Windows 2003 is always the culprit. Weird those people with Windows NT only have 1/10th of the problem. Those with Linux I never actually see because their systems don't break and thus I don't get called out lol. Once I install BLAG for someone, I never see them again as it just works.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:07 am
Posts: 699
Windows 2003 is way more secure than the Window servers that came before it. Keep in mind it still sucks in many ways, especially when compared to any other internet operating system. The biggest problem is IIS which is total crap. Linux is more secure, although there are still things you can do to it to make it more secure after most default installs. In general it has 1/10 the problems of Window servers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 1:37 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 4:45 pm
Posts: 621
Location: London
noldrin wrote:
Windows 2003 is way more secure than the Window servers that came before it. Keep in mind it still sucks in many ways, especially when compared to any other internet operating system. The biggest problem is IIS which is total crap. Linux is more secure, although there are still things you can do to it to make it more secure after most default installs. In general it has 1/10 the problems of Window servers.


Well I would still go with NT or 2000 over 2003 if I had to. I never ran IIS on a Windows server after a few early incidents so maybe my experience comes from removing IIS which to me is useless. I mean if I can break into it, then imagine what a real hacker who knows what he is doing could do. so I always stuck with Apache on Windows if I HAD to use Windows and getting asp pages to work with Apache isn't the easiest but once configured works fine. Given the choice I always went OpenBSD (with A LOT of help) or Slackware and most of my work places have used AIX. Now I use BLAG and try to get workplaces to do the same. I found that since I got myself a MacBook Pro I haven't had the need to use Windows at all. The 1% of times I need to check IE renders a page properly I boot up Windows inside OS X. I can do that with BLAG too :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:08 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 6:08 pm
Posts: 973
Location: Canada
Jason wrote:
Well I would still go with NT or 2000 over 2003 if I had to.


Why? Microsoft stopped providing updates for NT ages ago, 2000/2003 are a continuation of NT and in all likelihood are more secure. The reason you probably see so few problems with NT is that all installations have been around for a while so any issues they've been having have been straightened out.

Thanks,
Stephen Clement

_________________
E-mail me at s.clement@localhost (replace localhost with sympatico.ca) or stevo32@localhost (replace localhost with blagblagblag.org).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:07 am
Posts: 699
Jason wrote:
Well I would still go with NT or 2000 over 2003 if I had to.


One issue is that NT and 2000 are no longer getting updates. But the bigger issue is that by default, they are installed with no real security. Everything is open and flapping in the breeze. With 2003, everything is installed closed, and you run wizards to open up the needed bits to run stuff. There are still some horrible security problems, such as if you turn on IIS ftp, you also turn on a brute force password checking service. Although these days you do get some security


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:12 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 4:45 pm
Posts: 621
Location: London
Jason wrote:
Windows Server 2003 is only secure when not networked to any other machine, no keyboard or mouse plugged in and no power cable.


People still try to exploit Windows 2003. Who tries to exploit NT nowadays? Security through obscurity is never the answer to any security problem but neither is a dodgy OS people still try to compromise more than any other. Any Windows server attached to the net is screwed. I would still rather stck NT behind a corporate firewall, turn off all services and run Apache than touch IIS ever. We will beg to differ on this but I have had more than enough crap with Windows 2003 to not want to touch it again. Of course we could all just BLAG which we do anyways :)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group