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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <200403170843.41708.jeremiah@nur.net> From: jeremiah at nur.net (Jeremiah Cornelius) Subject: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 17 March 2004 08:19, Jos Osborne wrote: > >It doesn't address the issue. The requirement is that some MS customers > > need to patch without putting the machine on the internet. For whatever > > reasons. > > > >Is that such an unreasonable request? > > > >Geo. > > Sorry to sound incredibly dense, but if the machine in question is never > being connected to a network does it really need securing/patching? > > Jos Not every network is part of the Internet... The MOST 'at risk' servers are those with security requirements that forbid Internet access, but need LAN/WAN connectivity. The attackers are /inside/... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAWIA7Ji2cv3XsiSARAg5yAKCZ+mBeJcH7w3rsm00QLSLvjEcl2QCfa8Si PTG8z83alcwvejfQEECN1qw= =zS6G -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Powered by blists - more mailing lists