, 2003-04-27
With Windows Server 2003, Microsoft has finally produced an operating system that isn't begging to be hacked on the first boot.
Expand all |
Post comment
Secure by Default, Insecure by Birth
2003-04-28
Drek Software Inc. (2 replies)
Drek Software Inc. (2 replies)
Well, I'll give you this much, Timster...
2003-04-28
Penguinisto (4 replies)
Penguinisto (4 replies)
Well, I'll give you this much, Timster...
2003-04-28
Anonymous (6 replies)
Anonymous (6 replies)
Well, I'll give you this much, Timster...
2003-04-29
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Well, I'll give you this much, Timster...
2003-04-29
Penguinisto (1 replies)
Penguinisto (1 replies)
Well, I'll give you this much, Timster...
2003-04-29
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Zealotry comes in all forms.
2003-04-29
matt@beatlab.org (2 replies)
matt@beatlab.org (2 replies)
Secure by Default (Pathetic)
2003-04-29
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Secure by Default
2003-04-29
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)

Ok, tell me then, what primary method would you use to secure an Active Directory environment with multiple forests? What foreign security principals would you create? What IPSec policies would you use to secure the services at the protocol layer? What type of Exchange public store restrictions would you put in place for your domains? How would you secure site replication? What changes would you make in the IIS metabase to secure it? How would you configure your domain trusts, group policies, account restrictions, IIS URLScan scripts?
Hmm... well, I really hope these are things you are testing while you are "tearing it apart". Or did you just install it on a little desktop and change the desktop wallpaper?
Do me a favor, write a whitepaper after your review - I would love your "professional" opinion.
Oh, also, I'm interested as to why you would not choose W2K or W2K3 as one of your "family OS's". Serious question - I would really like to know - what is the technical reasoning for your dismissal of W2K3?
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/157/19629#19629