Is Zotob A MS Plot . . . .

[kurttrail]

Well Kurty old boy, after seeing your web sites, I must congratulate
anyone who could hack in and change it. A hacked website is not what
we're talking about when we're talking about malicious code
compromising an *operating system*. Your website was probably hacked
by a simple dictionary attack that allowed a hacker to ftp onto your
site and plant a new index.html file there.

LOL! My site wasn't the only only that was hacked.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

No, what makes things worse is the people that don't know how to
properly secure a network or node so that even exploits don't impact
them no matter how much they run in the wild.

Large corps hardly had time to test all the patches that MS bunched
together this month. MS purposely changed how patches are delivered, so
they come out one a month, instead of when they are ready. If the eight
patches were releasedspread out, it would be much easier for to test and
push them out.

I've never had a customer compromised, but we design with the idea
that NO OS/Service IS SECURE (since none are) and with that in mind,
we've never had a compromised server, workstation, node, nada.

I doubt you deal with number of computers that many of the largest
corporations have to deal with.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

I have to agree with that statement. Even a perfect, no buggy holes
found here type system can be compromised if the network it resides on
is freely open to the sewer.

Someone a while back suggested that the only way to be safe was have
your networks closed to the outside world. Of course that will never
go in the information age we now live in but... that reminds me of
that commercial where the IT was wondering how a nasty virus got on
their network being that he had covered all the security bases when
his little girl came up and told him he just had to check out the new
game she had loaded on his office computer........

But, if proper security methods were followed she would not have been
able to install it.

Even with my home network, I seem to spend more and more time checking
and back-checking my security, pulling maintenance on all my security
apps and making sure they are all up to date each day. That is time I
use to spend on more productive things not all that long ago. At the
present evolution of skullduggery on the web, we will all be spending
all our time guarding our back, front and side doors by 2010.

If you spend all that time checking and maintaining it then, forgive me
for saying it this way, then you don't have it setup properly.

I have 3 kids in my home, 8 servers, more than a Dozen workstations for
the family to use (and the kids friends). I have several real-time, on-
line games they play, use all the MS Office products and even Visual
Studio programs for them to learn to code with. My wife and I run a
business using several machines, and I always run as an Administrator
level account on the ones I access. During all these years, even when we
started using Windows 95, we've never had a compromised machine in our
home (and none of our clients have either).

As to your statement "people that don't know how to properly secure a
network or node".......... Even if they do, someone still has to
maintain it. The problem I am seeing is that a lot of companies and
even government agencies are dropping their ITs in favor of "Rent an
IT" only when they need one in order to save money. Well they aren't
saving much money if they are getting help after the deed is done but
tell that to some brainless CEO or Bean Counter (people with no common
sense).

Funny you bring this up - The company I started does just what you think
doesn't work - we provide outsourced IT support and design services to
places from the east to west coasts, and none of them have had any
problems, not even with the latest worm.

Where the problem comes in is that many companies don't want to pay to
get a secure design the first time and then simple monthly checks to
make sure it's still working. We've found methods that work for small
offices, large corporate solutions with 20+ offices all connected and
remote users with VPN's, even Medical centers with hundreds of nodes and
even public Web Access in the waiting rooms, and it's about knowing
where the holes are likely to be, now and in the future, and then
designing a secure solution around those projected areas.

I have a friend that has outsource some work to me that was outsource
to him by a "Rent an IT" company that was called by a local state
government agency that not 2 month ago closed out their IT department
to save money. In those two months, their individual systems and
their whole network is in shambles because... well you know why.....

That's a shame - does that mean that you were unable to present a
corrective action plan to them? Does that mean that the initial sale
didn't include a document/scope phase to uncover weak areas that needed
addressing? Doesn't that mean you are not doing your job properly. Being
in remote support means more than just waiting for a call, you have to
sell the idea with proper planning - you can't just say "call us if you
have a problem" you have to not take the job unless they permit you to
document the entire network/system, then you present a list of findings
and security concerns with a time/cost to implement corrective actions,
and, like most government groups, they will get it done - because once
it's documented as a hole/security issue they are liable bug time.

Sooooo, you not only have OS's with holes and networks with holes but
you are now getting systems and networks flopping by on autopilot
because the department that use to maintain, baby and nourish them
have been closed down.

And in many cases, at least all the ones we've seen, many of those local
people didn't properly secure the networks and were only reactionary
types. If all you ever do is "react" then you will never be able to
secure a network.

Excuse my French but the whole ****ing system is going to hell in a
hand basket! No one's minding the store any more.

Sorry about getting up on my soapbox but.....

Ed, you don't need to be sorry, I've seen what you describe many times -
that one way we get so many new customers. We're known for building
secure networks and securing broken ones for new clients - if you are
not proactive when you talk with clients, don't document their
holes/flaws, if you don't sell them on the idea that it can be secured,
then you're always going to be part of the mess.

 

[Leythos]

Large corps hardly had time to test all the patches that MS bunched
together this month. MS purposely changed how patches are delivered, so
they come out one a month, instead of when they are ready. If the eight
patches were releasedspread out, it would be much easier for to test and
push them out.

And you want to know something funny - we didn't apply any of the update
until this week, and not one system was compromised. In general, the
exploits/worms have to have a way in first - and if you block the way in
you don't have near as much to worry about. You also need to block the
spread - as I recall, the latest worm spread via 445 and loaded it's
payload via FTP. So, why do people let 445 out of their local networks?
Why do people allow outbound FTP access except as specifically needed?

I doubt you deal with number of computers that many of the largest
corporations have to deal with.

You are right, we work with about 1000+ nodes right now, soon to be
around 1500 as we pick up another client with 9 offices. While we don't
have 20,000 workstations with one client, the methods are the same and
they scale very nicely. Once the methods are in place you don't have
near as much work to do. Don't forget, I come from the industrial sector
where the entire plant (all processes) and the connecting plants had to
run even when the front office networks (which we were not responsible
for) were compromised - we learned how to secure without impacting
business functions in the worst possible conditions, and it carries
through into the business sector too - at least it has worked for all of
our clients. We left the industrial sector about 5 years ago, started
with just non-industrial clients and found that the work was a lot
easier, paid better, and we don't get dirty as much

 

[kurttrail]

And you want to know something funny - we didn't apply any of the
update until this week, and not one system was compromised.

When exactly?

In
general, the exploits/worms have to have a way in first - and if you
block the way in you don't have near as much to worry about. You also
need to block the spread - as I recall, the latest worm spread via
445 and loaded it's payload via FTP. So, why do people let 445 out of
their local networks? Why do people allow outbound FTP access except
as specifically needed?

And none of these corps had a need for FTP?

You are right, we work with about 1000+ nodes right now, soon to be
around 1500 as we pick up another client with 9 offices. While we
don't have 20,000 workstations with one client, the methods are the
same and they scale very nicely. Once the methods are in place you
don't have near as much work to do. Don't forget, I come from the
industrial sector where the entire plant (all processes) and the
connecting plants had to run even when the front office networks
(which we were not responsible for) were compromised - we learned how
to secure without impacting business functions in the worst possible
conditions, and it carries through into the business sector too - at
least it has worked for all of our clients. We left the industrial
sector about 5 years ago, started with just non-industrial clients
and found that the work was a lot easier, paid better, and we don't
get dirty as much

Is that the royal "we?"

Yeah, I'm sure some of these corps could do a better job with security,
but that doesn't make MS any less cupable for paying for its negligent
mistakes.

You want to blame everybody but MS. MS should NOT profit from fixing
its negligent mistakes! MS should be responsible for its mistakes.

But keep blaming the victims of MS's negligent code. I bet you blame
rape victims for their rapes too, because that is the kinda guy you are.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

When exactly?

Last night to be specific, and there are machines that may not get the
updates until later this week or early next week.

And none of these corps had a need for FTP?

They all have a need for FTP, but that doesn't mean you have to allow
FTP outbound from every node in the network - any one that allows
outbound access without reason is asking for trouble. As a standard, we
don't even allow full HTTP access outbound for all nodes - we ask the
customer to tell us what stations need outbound access, what type of
access they need, and what they will be doing with it - then we setup
rules based on the need.

In many cases Outbound FTP is limited to business partners of the
company - meaning we limit FTP to the sites that the require in order to
do business.

Is that the royal "we?"

Yeah, I'm sure some of these corps could do a better job with security,
but that doesn't make MS any less cupable for paying for its negligent
mistakes.

You want to blame everybody but MS. MS should NOT profit from fixing
its negligent mistakes! MS should be responsible for its mistakes.

No, I actually agree that MS is at fault for creating a mess and a very
insecure OS/applications, but it's not like we don't know it, it's not
like we don't know that all OS's have holes/exploits. As a good IT
Manager one should expect this and learn how to deal with it. You can
bitch about MS all you want, but it won't get your network back up or
keep it safe unless you protect it.

I would rather secure my networks and not have to deal with those issues
as a normal practice than to do nothing and just rant at MS every time a
system gets compromised. MS isn't going to do much to change the way
things are, and as long as we can stay ahead of the problems it means
that we can continue to run MS products without problems.

But keep blaming the victims of MS's negligent code. I bet you blame
rape victims for their rapes too, because that is the kinda guy you are.

You have no clue - and I never said to NOT blame MS, I said:

No, what makes things worse is the people that don't know how to
properly secure a network or node so that even exploits don't impact
them no matter how much they run in the wild.

I don't absolve MS of any responsibility in the above statement, what I
do it point out all the IT managers that don't really have a clue about
security not to mention the home users and their ilk.

All the information needed to secure networks is available on Microsofts
websites, on Google, around the globe, but few people take the time to
look for them, fewer take the time to implement them, and tons of people
take the time to bitch about something they could have prevented if they
had put as much energy into preventing it as they do complaining about
it.

 

[Dimple Wathen]

No, what makes things worse is the people that don't know how to
properly secure a network or node so that even exploits don't impact
them no matter how much they run in the wild.

Yeah, but you took that quote out of context.

I've never had a customer compromised, but we design with the idea that
NO OS/Service IS SECURE (since none are) and with that in mind, we've
never had a compromised server, workstation, node, nada.

Yeah, but when it comes to bugs like buffer overflows you don't know
they exist until someone finds them! Hopefully other admins find them
first, create and post a patch, and you update your machines. Duh!
GNU/Linux admins and programmers and kernel hackers all work together
to make your job easy, correct? (Or at least *easier*.)

Which goes back to your broad statements that "Linux" is secure "out of
the box" and will run forever without work. NOT TRUE. You even state
here that a network must be "properly secured" and that you "design
with the idea" of security.

It does take work to adminster and patch and maintain GNU/Linux. But as
I've said, Linux admins and programmers all work together to help each
other. This is a really good thing! It make for increased security,
faster fixes, etc.

But then again, this is a newsgroup about XP and not GNU/Linux.

 

[Dimple Wathen]

Right On! Problem is the simple Wintards around here are too busy sucking
off MickeyMouse to see reality. They must either hold MickeyMouse shares or
as I suspect, they're just your typical unquestioning sheep who want to be
spoonfed as they use their computers.

I want my computers to just work! I want to plug my new USB printer/
scanner/ camera/ whatever and have it work.*

I suspect that I am not in the minority in this regard. Which means I
want to go buy the computer and hardware, plug it in, and have it just
start working. Like a television or a telephone.

You see, we, the majority. Just go to Staples or Best Buy and buy
whatever on the shelves we can afford. And that makes us "Wintards" but
only becuase that is all that is available for purchase! (Micrososft is
a monopoly and clearly has broken many laws to get in the position
where it is today.)

Sure there are places to but GNU/Linux boxes, and all Artists get MACs
(as they should). But Linux does not run Everquest and Baldur's Gate
and Half-Life and most other games. (How is Wine these days? I hope
it's better than it was, I plan on trying it again.)

"Wintards" want (perhaps by falling for advertising) Quickbooks and
Quicken and all those Tax packages. These kinds of applications exist
for Linux and MAC but again, where does one go to buy them? There 2 MAC
dealers in a 60 mile radius of where I live. Zero Linux places.

"Wintards" want to have a person to talk to when their computer or
software fails. Do you know what it is like to have to rely solely on
newsgroups and websites for support? It works but it takes a long time
to find solutions.


<rant>

I adminster many Windows machines. And 75% of them keep failing.
Actually, all Windows machines slowly degenerate over time. They really
do. They are like old cars where the transmission is going, the brakes
are wearing, and the under body rusts out. It needs constant
maintenance.

Everytime a program is installed on Windows the system becomes just a
little bit more unstable. The more programs one installs the more
unstable Windows becomes. Windows, to this day, still allows programs
to install and replace systems files in it's system folder!! This is so
stupid!!!! That is Window's biggest problem.

And every program these days wants to install it's own services and
startup programs -- almost every single on of them!

Just look at the thousands of Hijackthis logs people keep posting all
over the Net saying "My computers is ^&^#$$&*&% please help!". Ninety
percent of those Hijackthis logs have some sort of anti-virus,
anti-spyware program installed!

I am currently considering replacing a WIN2K application server with a
Linux/Samba server. It will take a month, I guess, for me to find the
right distro and then to set it up. But according to a trustworthy
source it will be exponentially better than WIN2K.

But then of course, this is an XP forum and I dirgress...

I am here because I use XP and I am no expert. I keep needing to
discuss XP problems with others so that I may fix them. I don't
generally just want to "chat" about XP. I got better things to do. (I
suspect we all do, actually.) But like many, I also need to fret awhile
to "let off some steam."

</rant>

--
* I am past the days of programming and installing and configuring... I
do not want to have to run 'tar -xf some_driver_1.2.3 ; make install'
every time I have a new peripheral. Are those days past for Linux? I
really truly hope so! I really do! But maybe we should start a seperate
thread for that issue.

 

[Dimple Wathen]

Ed, you don't need to be sorry, I've seen what you describe many times -
that one way we get so many new customers. We're known for building
secure networks and securing broken ones for new clients - if you are
not proactive when you talk with clients, don't document their
holes/flaws, if you don't sell them on the idea that it can be secured,
then you're always going to be part of the mess.

After reading all that you (and others) have said (and the quote above
tends to summarize it all), I realize that I have been part of the
mess. (I wish an IT company with your attitude had setup our company's
WIN2K server which is now is bad shape and totally undocumented.)

I kinda sorta don't blame people for being upset that their shiny new
XP computer gets cracked.

If the reason is they downloaded a screensaver that installed a porn
server along with it, well, they didn't know better and the screensaver
programmers comitted fraud... so I am more likely to sympathize with
them.

If the reason is that they left port 445 open and got exploited via FTP
and all they had to do was block the port to protect themselves, well,
home users should not have to know what a TCP/IP port is and I still
can not blame the user. Windows can come hardened out of the box.

If the reason is that Microsoft had a design flow in DCOM or RPC or
something and they got exploited, I certainly blame Microsoft. Even if
Microsft had a patch made available.

However, I don't make a living on IT support, but there are several
computers I maintain and as someone who is supposed to know about bugs
and exploits and ports, *I messed up* if I did not do as much as I
generally can to protect those computers. We do know that these
problems exist and haxe existed for all Windows versions.

And I messed up.

 

[Leythos]

Which goes back to your broad statements that "Linux" is secure "out of
the box" and will run forever without work. NOT TRUE. You even state
here that a network must be "properly secured" and that you "design
with the idea" of security.

I hate to tell you this, but I've never, not once, said that Linux is
secure out of the box, and I firmly believe that it's not secure out of
the box as I've seen new installed systems rooted in under 4 hours.

 

[Leythos]

I adminster many Windows machines. And 75% of them keep failing.
Actually, all Windows machines slowly degenerate over time. They really
do. They are like old cars where the transmission is going, the brakes
are wearing, and the under body rusts out. It needs constant
maintenance.

Everytime a program is installed on Windows the system becomes just a
little bit more unstable. The more programs one installs the more
unstable Windows becomes. Windows, to this day, still allows programs
to install and replace systems files in it's system folder!! This is so
stupid!!!! That is Window's biggest problem.

You have got to be trolling.

I install tons of applications on a weekly basis for testing a design
work, have many computers personally, not to mention all the work that
gets done at clients locations - and not one of the has any issues with
the Windows XP OS or any of the standard MS Office applications, nor
with many of their other commercial / common applications.

My wife has been using a Windows XP computer that was a upgrade from
Windows 2000 Professional, without any issues (for accounting, books,
editing images, newsletters, etc) for almost 3 years without any rebuild
of the system and we're just now moving it to a faster hardware platform
(via ghosting to the new drive and then doing a repair install).

The only constant maintenance a Windows box needs it a monthly defrag of
the drives on a busy system and to ensure that Windows automatic updates
are working.

 

[David Candy]

Windows can be fixed rather easily. Like making the WINDOWS and

WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 folders readonly except by verified Microsoft
processes

Except if they did this noone would buy windows. The rules have been not to since 95. But compatability requires that it be allowed. And only admins can put files there anyway.

 

[Leythos]

After reading all that you (and others) have said (and the quote above
tends to summarize it all), I realize that I have been part of the
mess. (I wish an IT company with your attitude had setup our company's
WIN2K server which is now is bad shape and totally undocumented.)

I kinda sorta don't blame people for being upset that their shiny new
XP computer gets cracked.

I also don't blame users when their systems are compromised, unless it
was due to not following rules of basic security. The sad part is that
all the information on how to be safe is easily available on the web,
but those types don't look for it.

Imagine all the people that open the ebay email and actually go to the
fake ebay site and enter their personal information - that one mode of
getting peoples personal info has been on every news channel, in most of
the tech sections of news papers, listed on ebay's real site, and is
easy to determine if it's real or not, but people still fall for it.

Ignorance is not an excuse, it's a wanton action of being lazy in my
opinion.

If the reason is they downloaded a screensaver that installed a porn
server along with it, well, they didn't know better and the screensaver
programmers comitted fraud... so I am more likely to sympathize with
them.

Yea, but with a properly secured network they would not be able to
download any content that might contain malicious files - like we don't
allow .SCR files to pass through the HTTP sessions in our firewalls.

If the reason is that they left port 445 open and got exploited via FTP
and all they had to do was block the port to protect themselves, well,
home users should not have to know what a TCP/IP port is and I still
can not blame the user.

I can, as there is no reason to allow outbound ports 135~139, 445, 1433~
1434 and FTP outbound should be limited to a specific internal machine
or to know good FTP sites. We have all the Sororities setup so that
outbound traffic to destination ports 135~139, 445, 1433~1434, and to
non-approved FTP locations is blocked - in addition to blocking content
in HTTP sessions.

Windows can come hardened out of the box.

Windows can not come hardened out of the box, it would break to many
existing methods and fail in corporate environments. They need a new
version, abandoning all the prior versions.

If the reason is that Microsoft had a design flow in DCOM or RPC or
something and they got exploited, I certainly blame Microsoft. Even if
Microsft had a patch made available.

However, I don't make a living on IT support, but there are several
computers I maintain and as someone who is supposed to know about bugs
and exploits and ports, *I messed up* if I did not do as much as I
generally can to protect those computers. We do know that these
problems exist and haxe existed for all Windows versions.

And I messed up.

This is the start - knowing that you don't know and accepting that you
have to learn more - that's all that I ask of my team. Never say you
know when you don't, never fake it, never feel afraid to say "I don't
know". It's always better to learn that to hide.

 

[Ed]

If you spend all that time checking and maintaining it then, forgive me
for saying it this way, then you don't have it setup properly.

Well, I'm no IT. Even though I help a friend that is an Outsource IT,
I do so only because he is a friend and I learn something each time I
go with him. My home network consists of two computers networked
together via a Linksys wireless setup. I probably don't have my home
network set up properly but I can say with pride that all virii,
spyware, adware, etc. have been 86ed at the front door with none
getting any further. But, and as you suggest, me not knowing what I
am doing has made me have to spend countless hours riding herd on my
network and system security apps to keep it that way.

Funny you bring this up - The company I started does just what you think
doesn't work - we provide outsourced IT support and design services to
places from the east to west coasts, and none of them have had any
problems, not even with the latest worm.

I was talking about outsourced ITs having to come in and clean up a
network and individual systems that they did not design or build and
which has been "abandoned" (for a better word) due to the fact that
those that did design and build it were given their walking papers
thus leaving the whole network and individual systems in an abandoned
state of existence. Then, the powers that be wait until enough of the
network and individual systems have toppled down before calling for
help.

That's a shame - does that mean that you were unable to present a
corrective action plan to them?

No me, I was just asked to help with hardware maintenance because I
had some knowledge on how to handle that part. I'm no IT. My friend,
that got the call on this outsourced contact, did just as you
suggested and/or asked. And... this government agency learned a big
lesson about closing down departments without any knowledge of what
that department's true worth to the agency really is or what the
future ramifications could be without that department close at hand.

Yes, my friend set them up on a "Plan" that will keep them up and
running. However, I later learned that the time and resources
required to fulfill that "Plan" on the size of this agency would
require almost as much money as what they were paying their own
internal IT that they let go.... So, as I was trying to get across in
my original post, this agency brought all these woe's on themselves...
it was not the fault of any internal IT or outsourced IT. They, in
essence by letting their internal IT go, abandoned their network and
individual systems and didn't call for help until most of it had
pulled a Humpty Dumpty and came crashing down.

I think outsourced IT's have their place but when you are talking
about something the size of this agency, I personally think it was
cheaper to have an in house IT on salary. I just think some of the
bean counters with these "Big" companies and "Big" agencies, who are
being forced to cut here and cut there, are not thinking the whole
thing through when they think they don't need an In house IT any more.

My friend is telling me that he is seeing this more and more, where
outsourced IT's are called in (after the fact) to salvage "Abandoned"
networks and Systems. Please take note that we are talking about
Abandoned instead of immediately turned over to an outsourcer for plan
development and implementation.

Regards,
Ed

 

[kurttrail]

Last night to be specific, and there are machines that may not get the
updates until later this week or early next week.


They all have a need for FTP, but that doesn't mean you have to allow
FTP outbound from every node in the network - any one that allows
outbound access without reason is asking for trouble. As a standard,
we don't even allow full HTTP access outbound for all nodes - we ask
the customer to tell us what stations need outbound access, what type
of access they need, and what they will be doing with it - then we
setup rules based on the need.

In many cases Outbound FTP is limited to business partners of the
company - meaning we limit FTP to the sites that the require in order
to do business.


No, I actually agree that MS is at fault for creating a mess and a
very insecure OS/applications, but it's not like we don't know it,
it's not like we don't know that all OS's have holes/exploits. As a
good IT Manager one should expect this and learn how to deal with it.
You can bitch about MS all you want, but it won't get your network
back up or keep it safe unless you protect it.

I would rather secure my networks and not have to deal with those
issues as a normal practice than to do nothing and just rant at MS
every time a system gets compromised. MS isn't going to do much to
change the way things are, and as long as we can stay ahead of the
problems it means that we can continue to run MS products without
problems.


You have no clue - and I never said to NOT blame MS, I said:



I don't absolve MS of any responsibility in the above statement, what
I do it point out all the IT managers that don't really have a clue
about security not to mention the home users and their ilk.

All the information needed to secure networks is available on
Microsofts websites, on Google, around the globe, but few people take
the time to look for them, fewer take the time to implement them, and
tons of people take the time to bitch about something they could have
prevented if they had put as much energy into preventing it as they
do complaining about it.

You said you don't absolve MS of any responsibility, but never say what
that responsibility is.

You just seem to be pissy about blaming everybody else.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

Well, I'm no IT. Even though I help a friend that is an Outsource IT,
I do so only because he is a friend and I learn something each time I
go with him. My home network consists of two computers networked
together via a Linksys wireless setup. I probably don't have my home
network set up properly but I can say with pride that all virii,
spyware, adware, etc. have been 86ed at the front door with none
getting any further. But, and as you suggest, me not knowing what I
am doing has made me have to spend countless hours riding herd on my
network and system security apps to keep it that way.


I was talking about outsourced ITs having to come in and clean up a
network and individual systems that they did not design or build and
which has been "abandoned" (for a better word) due to the fact that
those that did design and build it were given their walking papers
thus leaving the whole network and individual systems in an abandoned
state of existence. Then, the powers that be wait until enough of the
network and individual systems have toppled down before calling for
help.

I know you were talking about outsourced I.T., and that's what I run my
business as - we're the team that people outsource to when they get sick
of their other outsource people or when they want a cheaper alternative
to full time IT staff. When you consider benefits, insurance, sick-days,
training, skills, it's cheaper and better ROI to outsource if you can
find a company that is reputable.

No me, I was just asked to help with hardware maintenance because I
had some knowledge on how to handle that part. I'm no IT. My friend,
that got the call on this outsourced contact, did just as you
suggested and/or asked. And... this government agency learned a big
lesson about closing down departments without any knowledge of what
that department's true worth to the agency really is or what the
future ramifications could be without that department close at hand.

Yes, my friend set them up on a "Plan" that will keep them up and
running. However, I later learned that the time and resources
required to fulfill that "Plan" on the size of this agency would
require almost as much money as what they were paying their own
internal IT that they let go.... So, as I was trying to get across in
my original post, this agency brought all these woe's on themselves...
it was not the fault of any internal IT or outsourced IT. They, in
essence by letting their internal IT go, abandoned their network and
individual systems and didn't call for help until most of it had
pulled a Humpty Dumpty and came crashing down.

And, being that we're an provider of IT servers with clients in the 5+
years range so far, we've never found where the above was true with our
clients. We have got a lot of new business/clients due to what you
describe, but without a good methodology outsourcing IT will always
fail.

If the client is large enough you put someone onsite x hours per week as
part of the contract, and it's still cheaper than having full time IT
people, and provides better support too.

I think outsourced IT's have their place but when you are talking
about something the size of this agency, I personally think it was
cheaper to have an in house IT on salary. I just think some of the
bean counters with these "Big" companies and "Big" agencies, who are
being forced to cut here and cut there, are not thinking the whole
thing through when they think they don't need an In house IT any more.

It's only cheaper if the outsource company and the local company don't
understand and manage it properly - which is usually the fault of sales
people not also being IT people and telling the client what they want to
hear for any price. The companies where the senior people are IT people
that also understand sales and business and accounting are the ones that
succeed.

My friend is telling me that he is seeing this more and more, where
outsourced IT's are called in (after the fact) to salvage "Abandoned"
networks and Systems. Please take note that we are talking about
Abandoned instead of immediately turned over to an outsourcer for plan
development and implementation.

Yep, see it too, and that's how we get new clients - and at that point
the client is ready to listen. They are also ready to let you secure the
network so it doesn't happen again.

 

[Ed]

If the client is large enough you put someone onsite x hours per week as
part of the contract, and it's still cheaper than having full time IT
people, and provides better support too.

Well, that would be my misunderstanding as I thought it would be
cheaper in larger deployments to just have the IT as part of the local
infrastructure.

The companies where the senior people are IT people
that also understand sales and business and accounting are the ones that
succeed.

Big Belly laugh here..... remember Leythos, I am talking about a
government agency here, where it is a foreign concept to have anything
near efficiency of manpower hours excelled via the ability to
multitask across fields of expertise. But anything other than
anything associated with government and what you say and suggest is
definitely the way to go. As a matter of fact, I have a friend that
runs a small (Small) company in the aviation support field and his son
is his lead sales agent, Ferrier and the IT for the company.

Regards,
Ed

 

[Leythos]

Well, that would be my misunderstanding as I thought it would be
cheaper in larger deployments to just have the IT as part of the local
infrastructure.

If it's not done properly or if the company they outsource too doesn't
have a clue, then it can be cheaper to keep the staff inside the
company. One thing we do is have a senior team member review all actions
on a regular basis looking for "signs". We also provide the different
skills/skill levels based on the needs at the moment - all for the same
fixed cost, many don't do that - they have a single tech that can call
another, who calls another.... We just send the right chap for the task
and find it works better for the client and us both.

Big Belly laugh here..... remember Leythos, I am talking about a
government agency here, where it is a foreign concept to have anything
near efficiency of manpower hours excelled via the ability to
multitask across fields of expertise. But anything other than
anything associated with government and what you say and suggest is
definitely the way to go.

We do work for a couple "department of health" groups in a couple
states, we're the external team they use to review their networks and we
go to meetings with them when vendors make a pitch. I was also in the
Military, so I know what it's like working with Government agencies

 

[Ed]

I was also in the
Military, so I know what it's like working with Government agencies

30 years retired here.....

Regards,
Ed

 

[NoStop]

begin  trojan.vbs ... On Thursday 18 August 2005 11:11 am, Dimple Wathen
had this to say in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

I want my computers to just work! I want to plug my new USB printer/
scanner/ camera/ whatever and have it work.*

A bit of careful planning to assure a particular peripheral is supported is
all that is required to have no problems running hardware under Linux. Hey,
much like when installing XP.

I suspect that I am not in the minority in this regard. Which means I
want to go buy the computer and hardware, plug it in, and have it just
start working. Like a television or a telephone.

You see, we, the majority. Just go to Staples or Best Buy and buy
whatever on the shelves we can afford. And that makes us "Wintards" but
only becuase that is all that is available for purchase! (Micrososft is
a monopoly and clearly has broken many laws to get in the position
where it is today.)

Slowly this is changing. As an example, here's not too bad a system that
comes bundled with a Linux varient designed for the complete computer
noob ...

http://www.ncix.com/simplepc/index.php?id=15665

Sure there are places to but GNU/Linux boxes, and all Artists get MACs
(as they should). But Linux does not run Everquest and Baldur's Gate
and Half-Life and most other games. (How is Wine these days? I hope
it's better than it was, I plan on trying it again.)

See whether there's a game you must have that won't run under Linux if you
use the following technology ...

http://www.transgaming.com/portfolio.php

"Wintards" want (perhaps by falling for advertising) Quickbooks and
Quicken and all those Tax packages. These kinds of applications exist
for Linux and MAC but again, where does one go to buy them? There 2 MAC
dealers in a 60 mile radius of where I live. Zero Linux places.

"Wintards" want to have a person to talk to when their computer or
software fails. Do you know what it is like to have to rely solely on
newsgroups and websites for support? It works but it takes a long time
to find solutions.

As I'm sure you know, one can find better support on the Web hanging around
places like this and other forums than what one would ever get from an OEM
distributor, whose answer to everything is simply to kick in the "recovery"
disk and put ones system back to square one.

<rant>

I adminster many Windows machines. And 75% of them keep failing.
Actually, all Windows machines slowly degenerate over time. They really
do. They are like old cars where the transmission is going, the brakes
are wearing, and the under body rusts out. It needs constant
maintenance.

You have that one right. With Linux, once installed it just works and
continues to work. Windoze on the other hand slowly degrades until one is
forced to wipe it out and start again from scratch. Sad, indeed, but the
truth.

Everytime a program is installed on Windows the system becomes just a
little bit more unstable. The more programs one installs the more
unstable Windows becomes. Windows, to this day, still allows programs
to install and replace systems files in it's system folder!! This is so
stupid!!!! That is Window's biggest problem.

Precisely! The Windoze API allows any software package to write anything the
developer chooses to anywhere in the registry. The result ... exactly what
you have stated. It's a kludgy OS that I like to refer to as a "toy
operating system", not meant for serious computing.

And every program these days wants to install it's own services and
startup programs -- almost every single on of them!

How often have you heard laments around here about how Norton has taken over
everything or RealAudio, etc. It's disgraceful and leaves all Wintards at
their mercy.

Just look at the thousands of Hijackthis logs people keep posting all
over the Net saying "My computers is ^&^#$$&*&% please help!". Ninety
percent of those Hijackthis logs have some sort of anti-virus,
anti-spyware program installed!

I am currently considering replacing a WIN2K application server with a
Linux/Samba server. It will take a month, I guess, for me to find the
right distro and then to set it up. But according to a trustworthy
source it will be exponentially better than WIN2K.

It will be like night and day, believe me. Done it, been there and can vouch
for it. May I suggest you look at a distro like Mandriva 2005 LE. Very easy
to install, comes with all the goodies you'll ever need for a LAMP and
SAMBA server and is rock stable. Maintenance is a snap using urpmi. The
first thing to do after installing is to visit http://easyurpmi.zarb.org/
and follow the instructions there to make package downloading a snap.

But then of course, this is an XP forum and I dirgress...

I am here because I use XP and I am no expert. I keep needing to
discuss XP problems with others so that I may fix them. I don't
generally just want to "chat" about XP. I got better things to do. (I
suspect we all do, actually.) But like many, I also need to fret awhile
to "let off some steam."

</rant>

--
* I am past the days of programming and installing and configuring... I
do not want to have to run 'tar -xf some_driver_1.2.3 ; make install'
every time I have a new peripheral. Are those days past for Linux? I
really truly hope so! I really do! But maybe we should start a seperate
thread for that issue.

Yes, see above re: easyurpmi.