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

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-----