Re: Securing a Windows 2003 server
From: Jeff Cochran (jcochran.nospam_at_naplesgov.com)
Date: 05/04/04
- Next message: Neil White: "Problems with secedit rollback info."
- Previous message: Eric Chamberlain: "Re: add group back."
- In reply to: Karl: "Re: Securing a Windows 2003 server"
- Next in thread: Joe Richards [MVP]: "Re: Securing a Windows 2003 server"
- Reply: Joe Richards [MVP]: "Re: Securing a Windows 2003 server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 03:34:08 GMT
On Sun, 2 May 2004 13:24:46 -0400, <Karl> wrote:
>My question to security is this: Why does MS allow all these settings on by
>deafult? Shouldn't an OS be in an 'Offline' mode until you properly
>activate it? You would be a better admin who has a better unbderstanding of
>how windows works and all.
If 1,000 people run an OS, and 999 install the OS with service A
active because they use it, should it always be off and inconvenience
the 99.9% of buyers?
That's the logic behind what you're asking. It always takes a good
admin to know what to turn on or off, and why.
Jeff
- Next message: Neil White: "Problems with secedit rollback info."
- Previous message: Eric Chamberlain: "Re: add group back."
- In reply to: Karl: "Re: Securing a Windows 2003 server"
- Next in thread: Joe Richards [MVP]: "Re: Securing a Windows 2003 server"
- Reply: Joe Richards [MVP]: "Re: Securing a Windows 2003 server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|