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]

From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? 

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:19:36 GMT, Jos Osborne <Jos@...temi.co.uk>  said:
> >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?

Yes, it does.  Unless you have physical security in place to guarantee that *all* access
is from trusted users, you need to patch the box.

1) It may be going on a *corporate* network that doesn't have direct *internet*
connectivity.

2) Such things as standalone multiuser machines *do* exist - they need to be
secured as well.  Similarly for standalone boxes in non-secured locations - consider
the case of a PC-based cash register in a store...

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20040317/c3ca4517/attachment.bin