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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <871080DEC5874D41B4E3AFC5C400611E03F607A0@UTDEVS02.campus.ad.utdallas.edu>
From: pauls at utdallas.edu (Schmehl, Paul L)
Subject: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1

You're not allowed to participate.  Only the geniuses that think they
have it figured out already. :-)

Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blue Boar [mailto:BlueBoar@...evco.com] 
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 12:15 AM
> To: Schmehl, Paul L
> Cc: Jeroen Massar; Tobias Oetiker; full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] 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?
>