On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Jedi/Sector One wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 04:05:13PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Are you saying that unless there's an exploit > > that gives you access to the target machine > > your company wouldn't patch > > It's a matter of priority. > > For most PHBs, proactive security must be very low priority because > keeping systems up to date doesn't bring any money to the company. >
Just to tell your boss that the worm/DoS/exploit/wathever-that-will-cause-a-severe-damage-on-machines-and-network will cost them more than keeping their system up to date (with proof). It's enough to convince them that the patching will save them a *LOT* of money and time (if the patch don't broke the system of course, especially with microsoft patches). If they don't want to understand it.. Well, I want to be there when their system will have a virus/wathever just to see their face :-) Oh, it's possible that the VP of company will tell to you that it's YOUR fault... E. -- Eric LeBlanc [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------- UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are. ================================================== _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
