Dear USA Today...now the story is even better

An open letter to the Security Community:

TrackBack — Sun, 12 Dec 2004 08:16:00 GMT

An open letter to the Security Community:

TrackBack — Sun, 12 Dec 2004 08:14:00 GMT

re: Dear USA Today...now the story is even better

bradley — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 15:20:00 GMT

I'm waiting for a story on XYZ Company's Auto Alarm - and how a thief was able to finagle their way around it. Of course, the story would fail to mention that even though the alarm was armed, the car was parked in the wrong part of town, all of the windows were left down, and the keys were left in the driver's seat . . .

re: Dear USA Today...now the story is even better

bradley — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 10:02:00 GMT

This feels like a newsgroup reaching for some mud to sling just so they can run a story to fill some blank space.

James

re: Dear USA Today...now the story is even better

bradley — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:28:00 GMT

Agreed--absolutely bogus. Even a novice setting up SBS-2003 for the first time would be have difficulty doing that. In fact, the novice would probably be behind a SOHO router, which also would have prevented the attack.

This is poor reporting. Yes, you CAN set the box up that way. You can turn off the firewall in XP SP2, too. A reasonable reporting procedure would be to set the box up as recommended by the vendor. Most people setting up servers actually read (or have read) a good bit of the documentation.

re: Dear USA Today...now the story is even better

bradley — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:39:00 GMT

This is only confirms what I have always believed: that newspapers write stories in order to sell more newspapers! I mean that if you set up the server the way it is supposed to be set up and its safe, there is NO story.
Let's face it, anything not set up the way it is recommended can cause problems. If your car manufacturer recommends 30psi tyre pressure and you put in 50psi, you can't be surprised when the first pot hole bounces you all over the place, or if you slide off at the first bend!