Re: WINDOWS NT ????

[snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>]

> An NT machine running off the shelf protocols and services is certainly mor=
> e secure than your average linux install. Of course clueless administrators=
>  for either (any) platform can leave the door wide open easily enough.=20

     How about an "average" NT install versus a "average" linux install? 

     Neither of my machines are all that secure, but they don't have to 
be right now. Neither has more than 5 users, all of whom I either trust 
personally, or don't know enough to do anything. On the other hand, I 
would be willing to bet that Mr. Metzger, or adamsc (sorry, I forgot your
full name) could lock a linux box down as tight as a networked NT machine.

    Hell, I'd bet 20 bucks I could. The machine wouldn't DO a whole lot,
but it would be tough to break into. (basically, don't run telnetd, ftpd,
sendmail, run sshd for incoming/outgoing connections, use a secure httpd
IF NECESSARY, NO NFS, shadow passwords etc.) 

> But what do you mean by secure?

     Safe from undesired intrusion.

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com