[67436] in Cypherpunks
Re: WINDOWS NT ????
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (snow)
Sun Oct 6 03:31:10 1996
From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
To: jfricker@vertexgroup.com (John Fricker)
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 01:28:16 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: snajdr@pvt.net, cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <19961005002433046.AAA82@dev.vertexgroup.com> from "John Fricker" at Oct 4, 96 05:29:40 pm
> 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
