Home page logo
/

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?
From: Jeremiah Cornelius <jeremiah () nur net>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:43:39 -0800

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 17 March 2004 08:19, Jos Osborne wrote:
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?

Jos

Not every network is part of the Internet...  The MOST 'at risk' servers are 
those with security requirements that forbid Internet access, but need 
LAN/WAN connectivity.

The attackers are /inside/...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAWIA7Ji2cv3XsiSARAg5yAKCZ+mBeJcH7w3rsm00QLSLvjEcl2QCfa8Si
PTG8z83alcwvejfQEECN1qw=
=zS6G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault