Windows 2000 Security

[Mandy]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.security (More info?)

Is it true that Windows 2000 resolved some of the security problems in
Windows NT by not turning on any of the services by default?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.security (More info?)

> Is it true that Windows 2000 resolved some of the security problems in
> Windows NT by not turning on any of the services by default?

This statement is not true. You computer needs some services running or else
it's just a paper weight.

hth
DDS W 2k MVP MCSE



"Mandy" <Mandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AEE8C858-61B3-4D3A-9D88-8302F4C59CF3@microsoft.com...
> Is it true that Windows 2000 resolved some of the security problems in
> Windows NT by not turning on any of the services by default?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.security (More info?)

If no services were turned on [automatic] then no one would be able to
logon to the computer. Windows 2000 is more secure by default than NT4.0
though Windows 2003 is much more secure in default install. Windows 2000
does automatically install and enable IIS 5.0 for instance in a non secure
state while Windows 2003 does not install IIS 6.0 at all and when it is
installed it is fairly secure by default. --- Steve


"Mandy" <Mandy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AEE8C858-61B3-4D3A-9D88-8302F4C59CF3@microsoft.com...
> Is it true that Windows 2000 resolved some of the security problems in
> Windows NT by not turning on any of the services by default?