RE: WINDOWS NT ????
An NT machine running off the shelf protocols and services is certainly more secure than your average linux install. Of course clueless administrators for either (any) platform can leave the door wide open easily enough. But what do you mean by secure?
snow (snow@smoke.suba.com) said something about Re: WINDOWS NT ???? on or about 10/4/96 2:57 PM
pclow wrote:
Adamsc wrote:
is Windows NT secured system ? NT? Secured? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha 8-) How ?
By turning off the machine, unpluging the ethernet, moving the hard drive to another state...
Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com End of message
An NT machine running off the shelf protocols and services is certainly mor= e secure than your average linux install. Of course clueless administrators= for either (any) platform can leave the door wide open easily enough.=20
How about an "average" NT install versus a "average" linux install? Neither of my machines are all that secure, but they don't have to be right now. Neither has more than 5 users, all of whom I either trust personally, or don't know enough to do anything. On the other hand, I would be willing to bet that Mr. Metzger, or adamsc (sorry, I forgot your full name) could lock a linux box down as tight as a networked NT machine. Hell, I'd bet 20 bucks I could. The machine wouldn't DO a whole lot, but it would be tough to break into. (basically, don't run telnetd, ftpd, sendmail, run sshd for incoming/outgoing connections, use a secure httpd IF NECESSARY, NO NFS, shadow passwords etc.)
But what do you mean by secure?
Safe from undesired intrusion. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com
participants (2)
-
John Fricker -
snow