RE: Fw: [cobalt-users] Raq4 verses Linux PC

["Kai Deecke" <go@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

okay children. that's enough.
time out for you 2.

-----Original Message-----
From: cobalt-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cobalt-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul Jacobs
Sent: Tuesday, 9 April 2002 11:29 AM
To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Fw: [cobalt-users] Raq4 verses Linux PC


At 01:39 PM 4/8/2002, you wrote:

>Paul Jacobs spake thusly
>
> >>Right now, raq is as close as it gets.  Works right out of the box and
>well.
> >
> >Can be hacked out of the box in 30 min. or less.
>
>
>Like an NT install of *any* of any flavour is secure out of the box? May be
>no worse than an unpatched raq but is isn't any better
>
>
> >>Have you looked at the Netcraft.com longest running boxes in the survey?
> >
> >Not in about a year... I have personally had an NT 4 PDC Server running
for
> >8 months.
>
>I can't remember a period of eight months without significant security
>related patches for NT being *required*, and I can't think of any
>significant MS patches than can be installed without reboots.

Yep, I had security on the network and my NT boxes so tight did not need to
patch the box, and in some cases could not patch the box because I was
waiting on a 3rd party vendor to make a driver that would work correctly
with the microsoft patch.


>So you are basically telling us that you ran your little PDC for 8 months
>while ingoring all the MS security patches.

Yep, and did not get hacked, but a lot of people DID try.....


>Sure glad you don't look after any systems for me.


I am also glad I do not.


>_______________________________________________
>cobalt-users mailing list
>cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To Subscribe or Unsubscribe, please go to:
>http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-users

_______________________________________________
cobalt-users mailing list
cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To Subscribe or Unsubscribe, please go to:
http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-users