From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 19:08:22 +0800
To: jfricker@vertexgroup.com (John Fricker)
Subject: Re: WINDOWS NT ????
In-Reply-To: <19961005002433046.AAA82@dev.vertexgroup.com>
Message-ID: <199610060628.BAA00310@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> 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