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

Message-ID: <EB97064208FCE64688AB6167895157E42EDED5@wnt1.weeversweb.nl>
From: fd at weevers.net (Full-Disclosure)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?

> "Geo." <geoincidents@...info.org> wrote:
> 
> > ... Even the stupid check tools assume you have the thing 
> on the net 
> > before it's patched.
> 
> Yep, yet there are still MS apologists who refuse to open 
> their eyes so 
> as to understand that "Microsoft still shows little hint that 
> it 'gets' 
> security".
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Nick FitzGerald

In an corporate environment, you will have SUS or SMS running.
If so, no need for internet access.

If you don't have this, just place a firewall on the box, or before the
box.
How hard can this be ? You do it the same way, as you would do before
you
would patch debian/*bsd/gentoo/ect/ect/ect.

There is no real problem here. Don't blame microsoft if you can't come
up with solutions to simple security "problems".

Niek