Re: Network Security
- From: "Bogwitch" <bogwitch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:14:39 GMT
"Ian" <Ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:FA3882F7-E157-4B61-83EB-D6E248DB4BB8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you want to host a website internally, then Linux/Apache is thesensible
answer. Even t hen it's one of the higher-risk activities, and soshould be
in a DMZ.
Ian,
Let me start by saying I am in no way a Microsoft evangelist.
Whilst I understand your recommendation of Linux/ Apache, it is not
always the best choice. If the in-house IT team have no experience of
using Linux, the chances that the system will soon become an unpatched,
festering pile of dung, to be rooted by the next script-kiddie, are
fairly high.
Corporate IT skills still tend to be largely Microsoft biased and a
patched Microsoft box will be more secure than an unpatched Linux box.
Bogwitch.
PS. If security is your aim, wouldn't a variant of BSD be better than
Linux?
.
- References:
- Re: Network Security
- From: Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
- Re: Network Security
- Prev by Date: Re: Network Security
- Next by Date: What kind of conspiracy is this?
- Previous by thread: Re: Network Security
- Next by thread: Re: Network Security
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
