Win2K banned on UCSB network

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Install OpenBSD on a library machine, and use it to attack every single university staff computer with every XP Home bug known. Make sure they cannot get online for more than .005 seconds at a time.

How much you wanna bet none of them will be bright enough to apply the "URLs can delete files" fix? Auto-opening emails ahoy ...

- M4H

 

[C'DaleRider]

Does this mean that some moron minorty screws it up for the majority?

That's the way it alwaysis in everything.......a minority creates a need that ultimately limits the majority.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

...in other news, sales of WinXP in the campus book store are up!

Can someone say "linux firewall"?

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Heck, we get XP Pro for *free* here. Campus computer store has a VAL (Volume Academic License) and as long as you're using it for "school only" you get free, legit XP Pro. Sweet, eh?

- M4H

 

[ggavinmoss]

Originally posted by: fatbaby
well ucsb is a party school along with ucsc and ucsd right?

SB, sure. SC, maybe. SD? No.

And yes, SB is retarded on this matter of win2k.

-geoff

 

[roncarter]

thats very odd

 

[FoBoT]

if people knowingly or unknowlingly installed IIS withOUT any security patches/not knowing how to PROPERLY maintain IIS , then i think the policy has some merit

i think the real problem/issue is with IIS (suck) not W2K itself

 

[OutHouse]

Iam very tempted to email them and tell them that their entire staff should go back to school and learn how to be real network admins.

 

[OutHouse]

found this in their forums site
Forums

The problems with Win2k are too numerous to list here, Brian. The rash of CodeRed/CodeRedII/Nimda infections ALONE this year have swamped our RCCs and overloaded Curtis and myself to the point where we began to seriously consider the blocking of Win2k from the network.

Windows2000 was *never* intended for the home user, which Microsoft itself would categorize all users on ResNet; it was intended for coporate use in an environment that had a centralized administrator/IT group that was responsible for securing, auditing, and updating those boxes on a regular basis. Stability issues aside (don't get me wrong, I know that 2000 is indeed more stable than 9.x/ME), there is no real reason for any home user to be running 2000.

In addition to the IIS infections mentioned above, ResNet users became the unwitting hosts of a very massive dDOS attack that lasted almost 2 months. What was significant about these attacks?
Every_single_compromised machine (50+) was found to be running Win2k and was compromised through an extremely basic oversight...a blank administrator password.

In talking to the majority of the owners of these machines, almost 90% didn't even know what an administrator password was! Why should these people have been running Win2k to begin with?
Here are just some of the (basic) things that need to be done to a Windows 2000 computer to ensure a minimum level of security...remember, this is only a *basic* list, and a partial one at that:

-Disable the guest account (now done in SP2 and higher)
-Eliminate any unnecessary accounts
-Create 2 administrator accounts (with a strong password)
-Rename the administrator account
-Replace "Everyone" group with "Authenticated Users" on all file shares
-Strong passwords for all user accounts
-Use NTFS on all partitions
-Always run a currently updated Anti-virus program
-Install the most current Service Pack immediately after installation of the OS
-Check windowsupdate.com on a regular (at least once per week) basis for the latest patches and updates for known exploits/new vulnerabilities.

Please keep in mind that I am NOT a huge fan of everyone installing XP either (When we last checked, there were nineteen critical(!) updates for WindowsXP Pro following the default installation), but the potential for a catastrophic compromise of the computer is indeed reduced under XP in comparison to 2k.

As far as Home vs. Pro when discussing XP, again there is not a huge reason for residential/SoHo users to run XP Pro. There are very few features that Pro has over XP...Group policies, roaming user profiles, RIS service, and scalable processor support constitute the majority of them.

If you've made it to the bottom of this post, then congratulations...it turned out to be much longer than I intended, but hopefully that sheds some light on our reasons for this policy.

 

[mithrandir2001]

Windows2000 was *never* intended for the home user, which Microsoft itself would categorize all users on ResNet; it was intended for coporate use in an environment that had a centralized administrator/IT group that was responsible for securing, auditing, and updating those boxes on a regular basis. Stability issues aside (don't get me wrong, I know that 2000 is indeed more stable than 9.x/ME), there is no real reason for any home user to be running 2000.

If MS didn't take so frickin' long to produce a stable home OS, legions of users wouldn't have had to flock to 2000 just to garner a stable, securable system.

 

[ChefJoe]

I think they stopped short. As long as we label an OS prone to problems, then we might as well all toss Windows alltogether and go back to a linux with a secure install...

I'm sorry, is long as my computer wasn't compromised and causing troubles (which a competent resnet should be able to notice and pinpoint) anyone who's telling me I need to switch OS's can go to h3ll.

If they must, they should have a technician come out and give you a copy of XP Home (if they recommend it), install it for you and make sure all your previous programs work properly.


Final Thought: Doesn't UC have one of those academic agreements with MS? I find it tough to believe that the terms of that agreement would allow an OS to be banned from the network or not sold at the bookstore to students.

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: Ameesh
thats ridicoulous in soo many ways. what a bunch of stupid it people.

No doubt! They should have made people switch to Mac.