Win2k supports IIS 5.0 and Win 2003 is IIS 6.0
There are patched vulnerabilities in IIS 5.0 which are not needed in Win2003 as
the release is a redesign.
For instance the ISAPI filter URLScan is not needed on Win 2003.
This is not to say that one should not keep up with patches as they are made
available.
CFMX 6.1 install on Win2003 is straight forward and relatively easy when
compared to the CFMX 6.0 install on Win2k and appears to be more stable.
IIS6.0 is faster than IIS 5.0
======================================
Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway!
For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases.
ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772
Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf
======================================
If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Tilbrook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 3:45 AM
Subject: RE: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
| That is total crap as Win2003 is based on WinXP code which was based on
| Win2K code and as such shares many of the same vulnerabilities.
|
| Do not consider installing Win2003 to be as "safe" as an unpatched Win2K
| installation.
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Thursday, 2 October 2003 6:35 PM
| To: CF-Talk
| Subject: Re: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
|
|
| As one who is running servers in both configurations, I strongly recommend
| the
| Win 2003 server.
| First, it does not have the vulnerabilities that are found in Win2k, and do
| not
| require patching anywhere near as often.
| Second, Most services are default to OFF, which requires a little more
| attention
| to configuration, but it is easier to leave unused or unneeded services
| turned
| off.
| Third, the interface is XP like and requires less technical expertise to set
| up
| and maintain,
|
| ======================================
| Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway!
| For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
| Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases.
| ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772
| Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf
| ======================================
| If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Ryan Sabir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 3:00 AM
| Subject: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
|
|
| | Hi all,
| |
| | I'm looking at setting up a new CFMX installation and have been given
| | the option of Windows 2000 Server , or 2003 Server.
| |
| | Which would be the safer option?
| |
| | Not had having a great deal of experience with 2003 I was going to say
| | 2000, but are there any significant advantages of 2003?
| |
| | thanks, bye!
| |
| | -----------------------
| | Ryan Sabir
| | Newgency Pty Ltd
| | 2a Broughton St
| | Paddington 2021
| | Sydney, Australia
| | Ph (02) 9331 2133
| | Fax (02) 9331 5199
| | Mobile: 0411 512 454
| | http://www.newgency.com/index.cfm?referer=rysig
| |
| |
|
|
|
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
