Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
In article <42fbb7d7.22195106@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
> You and I can read the white papers, but the regular everyday consumer on the
> street often does not have access to them. Today, with the overwhelming push to
> consumer-oriented computers and essentially a market saturation of computers in
> businesses, probably 90% of the computers sold today are to the consumer.
I agree with that, as long as we count consumers as people in small
offices and your normal office worker in a business.
> To
> make the OS as secure as possible Windows can be, new computers should come out
> of the box with everything locked down securely, with simple easy-to-explain
> steps for the non-geek to follow to make the tradeoff between more secure and
> more open in usage.
I would love to see an option like Fedora gives when you install - where
you can select something like "Home computer", "Server", "Workstation /
Development system".... That would determine the security settings for
the base system before they get a network connection.
> All this, followed by the installation of some hardware (a
> router with NAT) and a plethora of non-Microsoft products to close up the holes.
I think the NAT router is a must also, and every ISP should provide them
to ANY home user if not just enabling them in the ISP's modem/router by
default. As for the non-MS products, only AV software is really needed,
the addition of a soft-firewall under user control is almost meaningless
in normal user hands.
> As long as my SOHO clients use the software and follow the rules I've set up for
> them (like not visiting porn, gambling, and free offer web sites), their systems
> do not get compromised either.
I agree, but with a proper firewall, not just a NAT solution, you can
actually filter the malicious content out of those types of sites too. I
love being able block it in my home where I have a Watch Guard Firebox
II (yea, old, but it works great) running Web Blocker and multiple HTTP
filters based on authentication or IP in the network (some connections
get no filtering, others get full filtering).
> And, of course, one can never mitigate the security issues caused by
> architectural deficiencies in Windows. Sorry, but Microsoft is negligent, plain
> and simple. Flame me, if you want... Ben Myers
I've no reason to flame you, we agree on it, just in a different light,
sort of. I don't see the security problems as "architectural" problems,
the problem was that MS didn't drop support for prior software when they
came out with XP and that always leaves people with opportunities for
exploiting the ease-of-connection that the OS offers. If XP were to have
dropped ALL support for prior versions of software, required a secure
design of software and abandoned the idea that it would run on older
machines with those older apps, it would have been easier to secure it
like Linux is.
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
In article <42fbb7d7.22195106@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
> You and I can read the white papers, but the regular everyday consumer on the
> street often does not have access to them. Today, with the overwhelming push to
> consumer-oriented computers and essentially a market saturation of computers in
> businesses, probably 90% of the computers sold today are to the consumer.
I agree with that, as long as we count consumers as people in small
offices and your normal office worker in a business.
> To
> make the OS as secure as possible Windows can be, new computers should come out
> of the box with everything locked down securely, with simple easy-to-explain
> steps for the non-geek to follow to make the tradeoff between more secure and
> more open in usage.
I would love to see an option like Fedora gives when you install - where
you can select something like "Home computer", "Server", "Workstation /
Development system".... That would determine the security settings for
the base system before they get a network connection.
> All this, followed by the installation of some hardware (a
> router with NAT) and a plethora of non-Microsoft products to close up the holes.
I think the NAT router is a must also, and every ISP should provide them
to ANY home user if not just enabling them in the ISP's modem/router by
default. As for the non-MS products, only AV software is really needed,
the addition of a soft-firewall under user control is almost meaningless
in normal user hands.
> As long as my SOHO clients use the software and follow the rules I've set up for
> them (like not visiting porn, gambling, and free offer web sites), their systems
> do not get compromised either.
I agree, but with a proper firewall, not just a NAT solution, you can
actually filter the malicious content out of those types of sites too. I
love being able block it in my home where I have a Watch Guard Firebox
II (yea, old, but it works great) running Web Blocker and multiple HTTP
filters based on authentication or IP in the network (some connections
get no filtering, others get full filtering).
> And, of course, one can never mitigate the security issues caused by
> architectural deficiencies in Windows. Sorry, but Microsoft is negligent, plain
> and simple. Flame me, if you want... Ben Myers
I've no reason to flame you, we agree on it, just in a different light,
sort of. I don't see the security problems as "architectural" problems,
the problem was that MS didn't drop support for prior software when they
came out with XP and that always leaves people with opportunities for
exploiting the ease-of-connection that the OS offers. If XP were to have
dropped ALL support for prior versions of software, required a secure
design of software and abandoned the idea that it would run on older
machines with those older apps, it would have been easier to secure it
like Linux is.
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram