The salesman comes in and says, "This OS requires zero administration, just put some guy on it part time and if he's not a total morn he'll be fine." It takes a lot more than some guy part time so the bean counter without an original thought in his head concludes the the is a total moron; the guy's out of work, he learns his lesson, does as little as possible on the next gig; viola! vunerable machines (this by the way was an old UNIX salesperson ruse long before NT). For what Microsoft charges *their* SLA should contain penalties for down time. mg On Monday 03 September 2001 17:25, Franki wrote: > so you are saying that their priorities are to wait till they are > compromised and then try to deal with it?? > > Is it just me or does that seem like a bad idea? > > I have dealt with reloading compromised servers, (NT and unix) and it seems > to take me alot longer then 10-20 minutes a week looking for patches.... > > Maybe thats why stuff like what we are talking about here is a good > thing... > > Force the bean counters to stop stuff like code red BEFORE it has done its > thing... > > Give the IT guys some slack and leeway,, the only way that can happen, is > for the bean counters to realise that its more expensive to fix a server > once its been hacked then to patch it before hand... > > Unintented downtime is as good a way as any to convince them of that... > > Since they insist on running MS server software, they should be prepared to > have to patch it, they go hand in hand... > > If they didn't patch this one, which has been around for ages, how many > other holes are there in their security? > > Having said that, I have not implimented it either... don't have time to > mess around with stuff like that.. :-) > > I am too busy writing perl shopping carts and stuff for our company. > > much rather be doing that then patching servers or reloading compromised > ones.. > > > rgds > > Frank > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John J. LeMay Jr. > Sent: Tuesday, 4 September 2001 5:13 AM > To: expert > Subject: Re: [expert] The CodeRed -- BZZZT! it does not work > > > ** Reply to message from "Franki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 4 Sep > 2001 > 04:28:07 +0800 > > > I beg to differ here... > > > > The people effected by code red are not competent sysadmins,,, > > This is not necessarily true. Many of today's sysadmins need to wear many > more > hats than that of Uber-Geek sitting in a corner over their servers applying > patches. Today's SA is more of a manager juggling between scheduling > outages to > maintain 99.9% or better uptime to meet SLA's. Bouncing servers to apply > patches > is in many cases out of the question except for a small window of an hour > or so > per year. > > While this uptime can be maintained via clustering or L4+ switching, many > companies have little interest in spending the capital required to > implement such solutions. Training, hardware, and ongoing support costs > make implementation in many environments out of the question. > > The results of an IT organization being driven strictly by the needs of the > business results in a force that must work in a reactive mode. That is, > once a > problem like CodeRed hits, the staff is permitted to deal with it. > > John LeMay Jr. > Senior Enterprise Consultant > NJMC, LLC. ---------------------------------------- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; name="message.footer" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Description: ----------------------------------------
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
