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: <EKECJMGPAACGOMIGLJJDCEKGEBAA.geoincidents@getinfo.org>
From: geoincidents at getinfo.org (Geo.)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?

>>
>From experience, you can't just lock down to that one server. You need to
allow port 80 and 443 access to different servers. Each day the list of
servers changes because of the Akamai caching that is used. I spend some
time configuring locked down systems to be able to talk to them. So yes, it
is an unreasonable request.
<<

Actually you can, you simply enable IP Filtering. Since it blocks only
inbound connections you can then go out and do the windowsupdate dance.
Works on both W2K and XP.

The problem comes in when the rules wherever you are say that you must be
fully patched to get access to the internet or secure network.

Geo.