gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On January 28, 2003 07:42 am, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >> 1) MS software is nororiously insecure and is largely >> responsible for the insecurity of the current IT >> infrastructure, or > > >now i'm not a fan of micros~1, but i feel that i have to check this statement >for accuracy. in cases like "the sql slammer" the one at fault is definately >not the author of the software, but rather the halfwit who's running it >unpatched. as i understand it, micros~1 had released a patch for mssql >months ago, and this virus is only attacking the boxes that have yet to be >patched.
I substantially agree, with one proviso. One of the recurring themes of the advantages of MS vs UNIX is that you don't have to hire high-priced UNIX admins. That tends to encourage the belief that inexpensive (read less knowledgeable) sysadmins are adequate for MS systems. That belief is a contributory factor in the large number of unpatched systems. -- Tony -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
