full-disclosure - Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: nick at virus-l.demon.co.uk (Nick FitzGerald)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?

Luke Scharf <lscharf@....vt.edu> wrote:

<<big snip>>
> I've been a lot better about this lately, but I still think it's kind of
> absurd that I can't plug a freshly rebuilt Windows XP machine into the
> network.  You'd think that Microsoft would at least make an official
> release of Windows XP.1 or something like that to address this totally
> absurd problem with their software.

Heck -- a (comprehensive!) set of .REG files could probably be provided 
to harden a machine "enough" (disable all the "on by default but 
completely unnecessary on 99.997% of machines" services, set a few 
policies regarding protocol/interface bindings, etc) to make it "safe 
to venture onto the Internet and go straight to Windows Update.

Odd that a company that supposedly has now developed a serious interest 
in security has not done this, but has found the time and staffing to 
produce, test, manufacture and distribute an at least six month out-of-
date "patch CD"...  (Not that the patch CD is bad thing, but it 
provides an interesting observation of the actual priorities despite 
Billy Boy's proclamation that security issues were to take precedence 
over features.)

Regards,

Nick FitzGerald