, 2003-10-02
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.
Expand all |
Post comment
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-02
Anonymous (13 replies)
Anonymous (13 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad.
2003-10-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided
2003-10-06
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided
2003-10-06
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided
2003-10-08
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-03
Anonymous (5 replies)
Anonymous (5 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-07
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Sorry,shill@microsoft.com, but no.
2003-10-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Sorry,ltorvalds@space-for-rent.com, but no.
2003-10-04
Anonymous (10 replies)
Anonymous (10 replies)
MCSEs, what a joke
2003-10-06
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
RE: Sorry "Sorry,ltorvalds@space-for-rent.com, but no.", but definitely not...
2003-10-06
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Sorry,ltorvalds@space-for-rent.com, but no.
2003-10-06
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Sorry,shill@micrsoft.com, but no... again.
2003-10-07
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses (Another "I HATE WINBLOWZ")
2003-10-05
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses (Another "I HATE WINBLOWZ")
2003-10-06
Anonymous (4 replies)
Anonymous (4 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-02
Anonymous (8 replies)
Anonymous (8 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux will not succeed in replacing Windows at work because..
2003-10-03
Ken H (1 replies)
Ken H (1 replies)
Linux will not succeed in replacing Windows at work because..
2003-10-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Why this article SUCKS
2003-10-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Think OpenBSD, Linux and cia are much more SECURE !
2003-10-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Think, yet another troll.
2003-10-06
Anonymous (4 replies)
Anonymous (4 replies)
mail client exploit + local root exploit = just as bad as if you were root anyway.
2003-10-05
AlphaParticle (1 replies)
AlphaParticle (1 replies)
mail client exploit + local root exploit = just as bad as if you were root anyway.
2003-10-07
Anonymous
Anonymous
EDITOR: Please be more aware of sexist pronouns
2003-10-07
Pamela (2 replies)
Pamela (2 replies)
EDITOR: Please be more aware of sexist pronouns?
2003-10-07
Anymouse (1 replies)
Anymouse (1 replies)
EDITOR: Please be more aware of sexist pronouns?
2003-10-08
leavetheworldabetterplacethanyoufoundit (1 replies)
leavetheworldabetterplacethanyoufoundit (1 replies)
Scott's Right, Microsofties. Deal With It.
2003-10-07
Penguinisto (2 replies)
Penguinisto (2 replies)
If Linux is so secure.....
2003-10-08
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Thor Larholm has written a counterattack to this article...
2003-10-15
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Re: Thor Larholm has written a counterattack to this article...
2006-03-30
My head is spinning (1 replies)
My head is spinning (1 replies)
Re: Re: Thor Larholm has written a counterattack to this article...
2006-06-15
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)

Well, you are either lying or you are a bad administrator, either way, a Windows 2000 environment is not a difficult thing to secure with the proper processes and solutions in place. Maybe you are just like all those MCSE's who think everything is too hard for them?
I'm also interested in these problems you are having... what are they exactly? Viruses? Do you have a managed AV solution in place? Patches? Do you have a managed patch solution in place? Do you have perimeter security and IDS in place? These are not difficult concepts and, configured properly, are very easy to manage and require very little man-hours.
So, who is ignorant?
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/188/22894#22894