standard; similar setup to you in that it is a 1U hooked up to a more
powerful database server. Works really well and we like Win2k3 overall.
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: John Paul Ashenfelter
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:02 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Windows 2003 editions: Web vs Standard [WAS Re: Windows
2000 or 2003 Server?]
The bulk of the reasons that the "default" install is safer is
that it turns off a lot of unnecessary services/etc. If you standard
firewall/DMZ setup, you weren't really vunerable to external attack on
those services anyhow. And running IIS Lockdown takes care of most of
the rest...
So Windows 2000 plus IIS lockdown tool vs Windows 2003 default
install -- I'm kind of waiting for Windows 2003 SP1 :) Or running Apache
on the windows box so the point becomes moot.
But I *am* interested in folks impressions of the Windows 2003
web edition vs standard. I run a small farm of 1U web/cf (only) servers
on Windows 2000 that connect to a more powerful db server (running
MS-SQL 2000 and MySQL of all things under Win 2000). I was considering
replacing Windows 2000 with RedHat Enterprise ES 2.1 (3.0 in mid Oct)
based in part on cost considerations and in part on security issues. But
the Web Edition of Windows 2003 is price competetive (both are less than
$500/server) so I'm a little torn. Since all either runs is web/cf,
Windows 2003 Web Edition becomes a sensible upgrade path.
Thoughts? I know Dave said he had liked what he had seen with
2003 so far. Has anyone tried to license it? Seemed like OEM-only (eg
buy a new server) was the idea when it was released. I've got it through
MSDN so no prob testing it -- but curious about folks using it in
produciton or getting ready to.
Regards,
John Paul Ashenfelter
CTO/Transitionpoint
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Watts
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:03 AM
Subject: RE: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
> That is total crap as Win2003 is based on WinXP code which
> was based on Win2K code and as such shares many of the same
> vulnerabilities.
>
> Do not consider installing Win2003 to be as "safe" as an
> unpatched Win2K installation.
The "default install" of Windows Server 2003 is much safer in
many respects
than the default install of Windows 2000 Server. This is
especially true
with the Web Edition.
As for reliability, it seems pretty good so far, and I've been
recommending
it for use with our clients for about a month.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
