Re: SUS question
From: Karl Levinson [x y] mvp (levinson_k_at_despammed.com)
Date: 12/16/03
- Next message: ja: "Strange application popup"
- Previous message: Dave: "SUS question"
- In reply to: Dave: "SUS question"
- Next in thread: Andrew Davis [MS]: "Re: SUS question"
- Reply: Andrew Davis [MS]: "Re: SUS question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:39:17 -0500
I would imagine it might be for security reasons. Installing IIS onto
servers with other functions is generally to be avoided. SUS is fairly
secure when the IISLockdown and URLScan installer run, but if you have to
uninstall and reinstall IIS for any reason [for example, to fix a problem],
it appears to me that IISLockdown does not run again automatically even if
you re-run the SUS install, and you get some insecure default settings
unless you manually run IISLockdown. [And if you re-run IIS Lockdown
manually, you get some problems that you have to manually figure out how to
fix, such as permitting .EXE file downloads via the URLSCAN.INI file.]
"Dave" <dave@wellesley13.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OeVLHX$wDHA.2708@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> This seems the best NG for my question so here goes.
> MS recommend installing SUS on a dedicated server. Does anyone know why
> this is ? I appreciate the web server is heavily locked down when
> installing SUS and can see why you wouldn't want to run other web sites on
> the same box. But, why would SUS affect other services, say DHCP ?
> I may have to install SUS ona box running DHCP, RAS and WINS. The load is
> very light. Can anyone explain why this is a bad idea ?
>
> Dave
>
>
- Next message: ja: "Strange application popup"
- Previous message: Dave: "SUS question"
- In reply to: Dave: "SUS question"
- Next in thread: Andrew Davis [MS]: "Re: SUS question"
- Reply: Andrew Davis [MS]: "Re: SUS question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|