Bill Weiss wrote: > > Mariusz Mazur(mariuszat_private)@Thu, Nov 22, 2001 at 08:09:46PM +0100: > > > > Is this just me or maybe more people think that releasing this > > "advisory" (though this should be called "intimidator") was completely > > irresponsible and plain stupid? > > > > > > I think the point was to show us that the MS policy is stupid. There's a > hole, obviously it can be found, but MS doesn't want us to know about > it. With all the new MS OSs and now the non-disclosure of vulnerabilities, it seems to be a big drain on resources to cover all the potential vulnerabilities with external kluges. When I compare the amount of support time wasted on the security of MS products compared to the Macintosh, Linux and SGI workstation, it makes me consider dumping windows all together. I'm not the only person paying the MS penalty either. Since I either block or defang all potentially executable attachments at our mailserver, all the users have to waste time un-defanging attachments. Allot of web pages don't work right because I block most ports on our firewall. We also have the workstations preference files set up to prohibit activeX and java scripts from running making some websites useless. The main facet of the problem is that there is no way to fully disable IE and outlook from any MS product. These seem to have been the foundation for most all of the trojans and viruses the last few years. Just disabling these products would have kept us safe from viruses for the last two years. I'm not sure how I'm going to handle this passport crap yet except to ban XP from our company. MS has just increased the amount of time (through non-disclosure) we expend to cover our asses. It's time for use to consider how much time we waste covering our backside instead of moving forward. -- Glenn Valenta Engineering @ http://www.coloradostudios.com valentaat_private Personal mail glennat_private Work mail http://www.vambo.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Nov 23 2001 - 18:16:56 PST