ministrator
> -Original Message-
> From: Bellenger, Bruno (Paris) [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 1:41 PM
> To: ''ActiveState's Perl Win32 Users list' '
> Cc: 'Lee Goddard'; Flowers, Jay; 'Aaron Trevena '
At 13:40 07/05/2002 +0200, Bellenger, Bruno \(Paris\) wrote:
>Guys,
>
>Interesting as it may be, maybe this thread should be moved to a more
>appropriate forum ?
Agreed!
lee
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: http://l
The thread is becoming a nuisence..
1) Some people prefer to trust adverts to their more experienced peers
2) Some people could go on for ever about how insecure windows is
3) Its not very perl related.
> By the numbers: Comparing Windows security to Linux
> http://www.techrepublic.com/article.
EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 1:34 PM
To: Flowers, Jay; 'Aaron Trevena '; ''ActiveState's Perl
Win32 Users list' '
Subject:RE: Secure platforms DO matter!
Hm
You mean Windows Me wasn't just a throw away prototype then? :-)
Marty
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Sean Ahern
> Sent: Tuesday 07 May 2002 12:30
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE:
At 06:59 07/05/2002 -0400, Flowers, Jay wrote:
> Are we talking about Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, or IIS *.*.
>
>Have you all heard anything about win64? Do have any faith that MS is
>changing to become a more security aware company? MS is staking its life on
>.NET and Win64. They are workin
At 06:59 07/05/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Have you all heard anything about win64?
Yes.
> Do have any faith that MS is
>changing to become a more security aware company?
No. I am however sure that MS has become a company which -claims- it is
more security aware. But MS has always been guilty
> Are we talking about Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, or IIS *.*.
All. So far every release has been vulnerable. Even the patches are sketchy.
> Have you all heard anything about win64? Do have any faith that MS is
> changing to become a more security aware company? MS is staking
> its life on
5/7/02 4:07 AM
Subject: RE: Secure platforms DO matter!
> Not really my point. My point is that the system is only secure as
the
> people who run it. It is my understanding that most vulnerabilities
these
> days are not caused by bugs in the systems but rather lack of
> knowledge/c
> Not really my point. My point is that the system is only secure as the
> people who run it. It is my understanding that most vulnerabilities these
> days are not caused by bugs in the systems but rather lack of
> knowledge/control of the adminstrators running the systems.
The original point w
> -Original Message-
> Behalf Of Aaron Trevena
>
>
> > Presuming of course that the server is set up to be secure.
> All of those
> > OSes can have large gaping holes in their security caused both by
> > admin user action and inaction.
>
> If you were to chose a server for your bank to us
> Presuming of course that the server is set up to be secure. All of those
> OSes can have large gaping holes in their security caused both by
> admin user action and inaction.
If you were to chose a server for your bank to use would you prefer it had 5
to 10 vulnerabilities a year of which 1 or
12 matches
Mail list logo
