Not to sound arrogant, or say you are wrong, but to bring the issue into more general terms... are you going to point out software to me that is NOT rampant with bugs?
If I had the time to setup an extra domain on my servers, I'd seriously love to tell this guy to attack all he wants and make it a learning experience. I've been running MS servers in an environment that averages 100,000 - 220,000 hits per day at a University and we've NEVER had an inter or intranet compromise. I suppose I can attribute it to a good sense of security, knowledge about protocols and the in depth studies of how it all links together, plus, simply enough, KEEPING IT UP TO DATE! We all know how important that is... glad to see MS making that even more automated.
As far as I am concerned, and disagree all you want, I'd actually prefer a option to download EVERYTHING off of Windows Update (minus driver updates) and have it install all of it. Not just critical updates... my 2 cents.
But as far as IIS's security is concerned, I suppose I'm not giving many specifics but from my knowledge and experiences I can say that I feel IIS is the most secure web server available and I personally think an even remotely configured system wouldn't flounder in 'minutes'. Just sounds a little bullshitty to me... Unfortunately, making these systems as secure as I claim they can be still requires many hours of effort and loads of knowledge. Taking away those requirements is by FAR Microsoft's greatest skill. Ease of use and time saving... they'll get it folks... and if anyone simply MUST insist that UNIX is more secure, I simply offer this: look how long its been around and how far its come in that time compared to the NT kernel. Pretty amazing differences.
Haven't posted in a while, gotta pop around more often and stir up the shit. :)
This post was edited by aamendala on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 02:36.
|