[lug] Ah, yes: the much-vaunted Microsoft security

[Tony Dyson]

Bear in mind also the M$ is completely *reactive* in this area. They are
playing catch-up with all their product lines, mostly in response to bad
publicity & a growing rumbling of discontent amongst the suits. Why?
Suits hate being embarrassed, & now running M$ software represents a
measurable cost in downtime, lost productivity & increased support
whilst security holes are patched & broken systems are "fixed" (a.k.a.
reinstalled).

So M$ are trying to duct-tape security onto products that were not
conceived with that objective. They are having to learn as they go
along, & the process is going to be painful for everyone. M$ recently
announced that "Windows Update" would be starting to check for server
patches, promising a "one click" solution. Sounds good, but more
recently they released a patch which broke "Terminal Server" for a
number of customers, & it took 4 days to find out why. There will be
more incidents like this down the road.

Any of us who are required to support M$ products are going to be
companions on this great adventure. What fun ...

Chris Wade wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday 28 October 2001 05:45 am, you wrote:
> > >
> > > I just can't stop laughing: Can't Microsoft do ANYTHING right with
> > > security?
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure if its so much of that, but that they are the
> > biggest target.
> > If there's a will, there's a way.
> >
> 
> I dunno.  I've heard that Microsoft servers are known among crackers as "low
> hanging fruit."
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug