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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <200403171951.i2HJphOh009830@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? 

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:46:58 GMT, John.Airey@...b.org.uk  said:

> 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.
> 
> On the other hand, access to Red Hat Network needs only one port and one IP
> address. No doubt there's some serious load-balancing going on in the
> background.

If RedHat had the same "customers times patch frequency times average patch size"
product that Microsoft has, they'd be an Akamai customer too...


-------------- 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/a0fde152/attachment.bin