full-disclosure - Microsoft plans tighter security measures in Windows XP SP2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: ksmith at chartwelltechnology.com (Kenton Smith)
Subject: Microsoft plans tighter security measures in
	Windows XP SP2

On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 11:12, yossarian wrote:
> <snip>
> > File and printer sharing is not needed?  Remote administration is not
> > needed?  Maybe not in home use, but in corporate?
> 
> No, sorry Paul. Printers have their own IP address, file and printersharing
> was introduced for small networks. But since the mid nineties a network
> interface became standard in laserprinters- printersharing became a real non
> issue. File sharing: not for workstations, unless you make backups of every
> workstation. Not suitable for corporations, user data is corporate property,
> needs a back up so MUST be on a server. It is impossible to secure a network
> where file and printsharing is common (where is the sensitive info to
> secure?) - my personal BOFH way is disable the server service on every
> Workstation. And the browser service as well.
> 
What planet are you working on? I have bought 5 printers in the last
three years and 2 of those had built-in network cards. The others use
"jet-Direct" type interfaces which require software to be installed on
the server. You're saying I install this on everyone's workstation so
they can connect directly? Uh huh. No file sharing; everything should be
stored on a central server. Sure, no problem I'll just go out and drop
$100k on a SAN to store it all. *Or* I could take advantage of the fact
that every machine I buy comes with at least 40 GB of drive space on it.
And I'm sure you're going to suggest thin clients here, so I'll go out
and buy a small render farm for my graphics guys to do their 3D work on.

> Remote administration may be needed, I just said it is rarely used, for
> various reasons, the foremost being that the support staff don't know sh**t
> about the inner workings of windows, MCP or not.

Right and what inner workings do I need to know to use my remote patch
management software without RPC? It's really handy actually, but then
again maybe there's a better way to do it that I'm just to stupid to
know about.

<snip>

Hopefully we can all agree that anything Microsoft can do to attempt to
make it's O/S more secure is better than the way it is now.

Kenton