Re: Security Issues with NT4 being no longer supported.

From: Roger Abell (mvpNOSpam_at_asu.edu)
Date: 11/26/04

  • Next message: Roger Abell: "Re: Local admin group" 
    Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 08:38:10 -0700

    Please note that there is a contradiction in saying
    > NO services are are exposed to any public NICs.
    >
    > Remote users can access the office network over a VPN
    > - but this is done through a separate hardware firewall.

    So your servers are exposed to the quality of the machines
    used by the remote users, and those are potentially exposed
    to the whole world. 

    -- 
Roger Abell
Microsoft MVP (Windows  Security)
MCSE (W2k3,W2k,Nt4)  MCDBA
"Jordan" <jordanmcclements@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e8096ce.0411260229.27ae5d2@posting.google.com...
> We have a fairly low tech (NT4 SP6a) setup.
>
> NO services are are exposed to any public NICs.
>
> Remote users can access the office netowrk over a VPN - but this is
> done through a separate hardware firewall.
>
> NT4 does exactly what we need it to do, and I am loathe to spend
> thousands of pounds and weeks of work upgrading to Windows Server
> 2003.
>
> I know that you can never be too careful etc.  But realistically, do I
> NEED to upgrade NT4 in order to be secure?
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice.
  • Next message: Roger Abell: "Re: Local admin group"

    Relevant Pages

    • Security Issues with NT4 being no longer supported.
      ... We have a fairly low tech (NT4 SP6a) setup. ... Remote users can access the office netowrk over a VPN - but this is ... thousands of pounds and weeks of work upgrading to Windows Server ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.security)
    • Log on to domain
      ... I have a system that has a couple of remote users. ... they are unable to see the domain server (NT4 at present) ... ports are open? ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely)