Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?

[Cael Abal <lists2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

alwayssecure@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
> How is it that some sysadmins can manage security, can just get on and
> get the job done, and some others have to bitch and moan and show
> their appalling ignorance of the wealth of tools available to them -
> many provided by Microsoft.
>
> The site I secure has never been hacked since I arrived four years
> ago. It is always kept up to date with patches - within hours of them
> becoming available.

Hi Bob,

So, your site has never been compromised?  You /absolutely/ sure about
that?  :) </tongue in cheek>

I have to say your rapid patch deployment policy rather frightens me.  I
wouldn't even consider rolling out patches without rigourous testing.

Keep in mind, though, that I've had workstations completely hosed by
patches (I believe one of the worst was an innocent-seeming upgrade from
IE 4 -> 5, but don't hold me to that).

Personally, I think Microsoft is doing a tolerable job on the patch
management front.  SUS is nice but needs significant work -- the absence
of logging, for example, is a huge omission.  Rumours were it was
supposed to be implemented in SUS 2.0?

Cael


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFAWiF6R2vQ2HfQHfsRAjddAKDTPcoitkS/IXuhN6ileDELwzDntACeI3OB
hNNQkQGq56Ao2z0hFTeH6QM=
=aRJS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html