On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 08:23:44 +0000, Dylan Smith wrote:

In article , C J Campbell wrote:
Fine, if you have a huge corporation that can afford a bunch of well-paid
admins. Your argument is beginning to sound an awful lot like you don't
think most people should have computers and that you think that the general
public is a menace.

No, I think Windows as it currently stands is unsuitable for the general
public. Windows as it stands is fine in an environment where a corporate
admin can look after the network. It's not the users fault, it's the
fault of Microsoft because the configuration is insecure by default.


This is true. Security has never been a significant priority for MS.

Windows as it stands should have at
least the software firewall on *by default* and almost all services
(most services which home users will never use) *off* by default.
Finally, MS has decided to listen and will have the firewall on by
default in Service Pack 2. Security researchers have been saying this
for *years*, and only now is it being done.

Rumor has it, that they will be making such changes in the future. Worth
noting, that I believe I read the XP SP2 will even make the firewall start
BEFORE the interfaces go live. Which means their software fire will
become more than worthless. Keep your fingers crossed.

It's not a problem with the users. It's entirely a problem with Windows.
The users are essentially decieved - it's a nice easy to set up system,
but they've been tricked into having a system that claims to be easy to
use and maintain, but really requires an expert system administrator to
make secure.

This is true. Which certainly does create many problems. Just the same,
in fairness, it requires an expert on any system to properly maintain and
keep secure.


That isn't the fault of Windows.

But it IS the fault of Windows. Having a number of insecure services
turned on by default which the vast majority of home users will *never*
use on a network is purely the fault of Microsoft. The PC manufacturers
also have some responsibility to bear - they could have at least thought
about it and set up a reasonably secure disk image when they duplicated
the hard disk loads for their PCs.

This is a fair complaint. Along those lines, many Linux distros had some
problems because newbs would select every service under the sun and enable
them without knowing what was going on. So, while having available the
shortest path to stupidity stinks, it still boils down to making sure you
have an administrator that's worth a dang. This is true, no matter what
OS you have. Granted, a bad admin, from a security perspective, might be
able to hide easier on non-Win platforms, eventually, they will get caught
with their pants down without regard for the platform that they admin.

Cheers,

Greg




Greg