Re: [Full-Disclosure] MS should point windowsupdate.com to127.0.0.1

[Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu>]

--On Friday, August 15, 2003 08:25:08 AM -0700 David Hane 
<dlhane@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I just finally started reading this thread. I wish I had read it earlier
> but  all the noise around this place has been driving me crazy.
>
> Anyway, I have 2 such machines on my network. My solution has been to
> yank the  ethernet cable . I know, minus points, but there are other ways
> to get  information to/from the machine. In cases where it is only
> feasible to use  the network I have trained the users to plug it in only
> for the duration of  the network session. Believe it ro not this has been
> working great ever since  my intern updated the machines and they were
> down for 3 days. Now the users  know what it's like to not have them
> working and they're very helpful.
>
OK.  Time for the resident experts to offer workable solutions for this 
man's problem.  (I have one, but I'll let others post first.)

> Actually this brings up an interesting idea. Has anyone ever actually
> "broke"  a machine on purpose as a way to show the users how good they
> have it and how  much trouble it would be for them if they don't
> cooperate with network  policies? Sure it's not ethical but it could be
> quite effective?
>
Do that at UTD and you'll be looking for work.

Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html