Allowing access to this content only through FTP, instead of network shares
may give you a lot more protection. We had a graphics developer a while
back with network access to tens of thousands of live web graphic files on a
shared web server. He opened an infected email attachment which modified
jpg's and gif's on all mapped drives. We had to restore this content from
backup, which took a couple hours. Now, only FTP access is permitted to
this machine, even though it's on the local network.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Server" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 9:17 AM
Subject: RE: Success with NetShield 4.5 ?
> I realize NetShield would not help against IIS vulnerabilities, but there
> are a number (~ 40) of users who have network access to this machine to
> update html content; the purpose of NetShield in this scenario would be to
> protect the server in case one of these users' machines gets infected. So
> it's not completely pointless (I don't think) but I'm not sure it's worth
> it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
'unsubscribe' in the body or visit the list page at www.houseoffusion.com
