mailing list archives
Re: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?
From: Nick FitzGerald <nick () virus-l demon co uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:48:13 +1300
Luke Scharf <lscharf () aoe vt edu> wrote:
I've been a lot better about this lately, but I still think it's kind of
absurd that I can't plug a freshly rebuilt Windows XP machine into the
network. You'd think that Microsoft would at least make an official
release of Windows XP.1 or something like that to address this totally
absurd problem with their software.
Heck -- a (comprehensive!) set of .REG files could probably be provided
to harden a machine "enough" (disable all the "on by default but
completely unnecessary on 99.997% of machines" services, set a few
policies regarding protocol/interface bindings, etc) to make it "safe
to venture onto the Internet and go straight to Windows Update.
Odd that a company that supposedly has now developed a serious interest
in security has not done this, but has found the time and staffing to
produce, test, manufacture and distribute an at least six month out-of-
date "patch CD"... (Not that the patch CD is bad thing, but it
provides an interesting observation of the actual priorities despite
Billy Boy's proclamation that security issues were to take precedence
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
RE: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? John . Airey (Mar 16)
Re: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? Geoincidents (Mar 17)