Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 09:58:50 -0700 From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> To: Joshua Fielden <shag@concentric.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Exchange vs. Notes Message-ID: <339AE4C9.5BD1@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> References: <199706070628.XAA01055@MindBender.serv.net> <3399782F.F933CA56@concentric.net> <339A6659.3B9F@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> <339A55A6.3583874A@concentric.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joshua Fielden wrote: > > > > > The great advantage of NT over UNIX is security: they certified C2 > > security...IF you unplug it from the network and don't use your floppy > > drives :-) > > > > Pedro > > > JF > > But remember the old adage... "any computer with a human user is > insecure." :-) I was precisely noting that NT is secure ONLY IF no one uses it. Yes there are security problems reported under NT, especially after their so-called certification. M$ admitted their certification was only valid if NT is unaccesible to a human being. NT is very different from W95: NT is a microkernel that was conceived from the start to compete with UNIX. NT is more secure than UNIX because it doesn't support (natively) telnet, ftp, sendmail and the other services we know. NT's security is achievable under UNIX, but who would like to comment all the services in inetd.conf and replace them with the MSN? I wouldn't buy exchange because I can only use it with an M$ OS. Notes deserves the try. BTW anyone knows if SCO's version runs under FreeBSD? Pedro. > -- > SCSI is *not* magic. There are many technical > reasons why it is occasionally nessicary to > sacrifice a small goat to your SCSI chain. > --Joshua Fielden
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?339AE4C9.5BD1>