I have trouble when any all-encompassing term like "security" is used. I have a tendency to think of the tradeoff between operational requirements and security risks. And so forth. It is NEVER a simple question!
Jim Mike Dawg wrote: > > I really dislike the term "out-of-box security". If you're an admin, or > even a buyer of a system, out-of-box security really has little or no > relevance at all. I really don't think of security in degrees, or as a > rating from 1-10, it is either secure or not secure, and if is currently > secure, without and administration, it will soon be insecure. Unless you > plan on upgrading each system every day with a system that is > "out-of-the-box secure" then there is a little relevance, but I think I > will safely assume that is not the case. > > Just my 2 cents > > Mike > > At 09:19 AM 3/29/2002 -0500, you wrote: > >Until you plug them in, they appear roughly equivalent out of the box. > > > >;-) > > > >Justin Kremer wrote: > > > > > > Just curious what you all think about the new Mac OS X. Which is more > > > secure out-of-box; Windows XP or Mac OS X? > > > > > > -Justin > > > >-- > >James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA > >Booz | Allen | Hamilton > >phone: (410) 684-6566 -- James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA Booz | Allen | Hamilton phone: (410) 684-6566
