From: Mike '/m' 

On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 19:08:32 -0400, "Geo."  wrote:

>"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
>news:cse2evc34chm18isdf7njnmndpue1m38h1{at}4ax.com...
>>
>> Wouldn't the whole sequence be easier if you were installing behind a
>> firewall?   Would you need to be as concerned about being wormed?
>
>that would depend on the firewall. If you are installing a web server and
>the firewall allows port 80 then anything that comes in over port 80
>obviously isn't going to be bothered by the firewall.


I was thinking that the firewall would block all incoming traffic until the
Windows install was properly patched.   To be more specific, I was
thinking of my OpenBSD firewall providng the needed level of security until
I could get Windows to the point where my system was not an open invitation
to hackers.



>Also the other thing that bothers me with Microsoft's current patch
>procedure is it takes them so damn long to get a service pack out that by
>the time it's out you already have 2 or 3 post service pack hotfixes. SP4 is
>so far behind that it's going to have a half dozen by the time it's
>released.


Yes, but I also have a problem with the current EULAs.  As such, I can no
longer rely upon Microsoft to secure my Windows systems.  Read that last
sentence again and think about it.

It is really a shame that I have to rely upon other, non-Microsoft options
to secure the systems, because of the onerous and specious Microsoft
licensing provisions.

Phrased differently, I cannot go beyond W2K SP2 due to the EULAs.   I
have to rely upon other [non-Microsoft] means to secure my Windows systems
because Microsoft insists upon owning my PC in order to allow me to try to
keep it up to date security-wise.  When Microsoft starts paying me rental
and/or lease fees, then and only then I will consider the option of
allowing them to own my PC.

 /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4