full-disclosure - MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1

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]

Message-ID: <3F3C6C4D.6050200@thievco.com>
From: BlueBoar at thievco.com (Blue Boar)
Subject: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1

Schmehl, Paul L wrote:

> I just curious how you geniuses would solve this problem.  You have a
> multi-six figure scientific instrument, which is only manufactured by
> one vendor in the entire world.  Your research department depends upon
> that instrument to do research for which they are being funded
> handsomely by grants and expected to produce results.
> 
> There's only one problem.  The instrument requires that you run Windows
> 2000 Server with IIS, and the vendor requires that you not apply *any*
> patches post SP2.  The government certifies the equipment at a certain
> patch level, and if the equipment is patched then the certification no
> longer applies, the research is no longer funded and you are now staring
> a six figure boat anchor.
<snip>
> 2) Minus points if you say "Don't allow access to the Internet.  It
> *requires* access to the Internet.  (IOW, it has to be able to connect
> to "live" IP address ranges, not private IPs.)

What *kind* of Internet access?  Any reason I can't put a firewall or proxy 
of some sort between it and the Internet?  Maybe an IDS running as a router?

						BB