Home > Windows > Installing Windows Server 2003Installing Windows Server 2003 Eugenia Loli 2003-07-21 Windows 29 CommentsExplore all the possibilities for your installation of Windows Server 2003. You will get all of the helpful tips you need to complete a successful installation or upgrade.About The Author Eugenia LoliEx-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 29 Comments 2003-07-21 6:43 am Step 1-throw away windows server 2003 discs.Step 2-install freeBSDSounds pretty simple to me 2003-07-21 7:47 am LoL 2003-07-21 8:33 am Only having a quick look at the article, it seemed pretty basic… Having installed Win2K Svr quite a few times (over 100 installs, at approx 80 different sites), this article was quite frankly a waste. These are the type of items that *any* MCSE (or even MCP’s) should know backwards… I was hoping for an article that explained all the gotcha’s of a poor install of Win2K3… 2003-07-21 11:38 am Boot computer from a CDROM.Press Next, Next, Next.(Actually I prefer the Step 1 2003-07-21 1:32 pm Step 3-Take the money you saved by installing FreeBSD and go buy something cool. 2003-07-21 2:08 pm “Step 3-Take the money you saved by installing FreeBSD and go buy something cool.”Like a second computer so you can run DragonFly! 2003-07-21 2:46 pm Since the flaws and bugs are starting to appearits better to call it..Migrating from Windows Server 2003 to Linux/BSD.Mark,simpel but you made a crucial mistake.Step 1-Sell your windows server 2003 discs to a fool.Step 2-install freeBSDStep 3 go on Holiday.. 2003-07-21 2:54 pm I installed it, I liked it, then I found that in the 12 hours since I installed it, there were 2 ftp warez servers and an IRC channel that had appeared on it… Oh yea, its secure… I saved a nickel over a secure installation – w00t – go microsoft!-÷-≡-÷-≡-÷-≡-÷-≡-÷-≡-÷-≡-÷-≡ -÷-≡-÷-≡-÷-≡-÷-≡-÷-≡-÷-≡-÷-≡ -÷-≡Listen To Mick Nobody Live, Tuesdays 10-11PM EST on SDRN.TK 2003-07-21 3:31 pm Windows 2k3 server’s security is still a laugh, although it’s certainly better than previous versions.But still, people in management positions often prefer the warm fuzzy feeling they get when some big company says it’s secure. It doesn’t matter to them if that’s even true or not.But I don’t care, really. [sarcasm] It would be a shame to see a truly secure windows version, because we’ll need to find something else to laugh with then [/sarcasm] 2003-07-21 3:35 pm rabbit: Do you have anything to back up your claims, or are you just spouting off at the mouth? 2003-07-21 3:47 pm From security focus: (Selecting only Windows server 2003) 2003-07-14: Microsoft Windows HTML Converter HR Align Buffer Overflow Vulnerability 2003-06-09: Microsoft Windows FIN-ACK Network Device Driver Frame Padding Information Disclosure Vulnerability 2003-06-02: Microsoft Windows 2000/XP/2003 IPV6 ICMP Flood Denial Of Service Vulnerability 2003-05-22: Microsoft Internet Connection Firewall IPv6 Traffic Blocking Vulnerability 2003-04-15: Microsoft Windows EngTextOut Non-ASCII Character Denial Of Service VulnerabilitySeems they did cut the vulnerabilities in half, 1 a month now instead of 2. 2003-07-21 4:01 pm Yes, compare the list of vulnerabilities in Windows Server 2k3 (see post by Aitvo), to the list of OpenBSD 3.3 at http://www.openbsd.org/errata.html (which is empty).Also, you probably didn’t hear about the rather heavy hole that was recently found and affects about all versions of Windows, including 2k3? 2003-07-21 4:56 pm No one on this board has clain to back up what they say.rabbit (IP: —.telenet-ops.be)……displaying a site showing a comparison on Win2003 and OpenBSD….the site should not be the openBSD site….even if the claims are correct…….if MS was to do this we would never hear the end of it. 2003-07-21 5:33 pm You didn’t look at the site. The site shows errata for OpenBSD 3.3, and doesn’t speak about MS at all. I compare that list to MS’s list of errata.Add to this that Microsoft often hides (or at least tries to) security problems, whereas the OpenBSD team is very open about them, if they occur.If you want a third party site about OpenBSD’s security track record, google around, there’s plenty of articles to find, but you’ll just learn that OpenBSD is one of the most secure operating systems out there (maybe even the most secure). You can’t say this about any Microsoft OS.Microsoft has always paid little attention to security; marketing has always been, and still is, the most important thing for them. And although they’re saying that they’re working on security now, they’re not quite there yet. They’re even still very far from it. So far from it, that all their claims sound like pure marketing-speak to me.The only valid point you can make is that comparing OpenBSD and Windows is a bit ridiculous, since they’re pretty much like apples and oranges, in almost every aspect. 2003-07-21 5:40 pm Okay…and now lets compare this to the list of vulnerabilities in Red Hat Linux…pick a version, any versionWin2K3 has an excellent security track record compared to previous Microsoft offerings and virtually all popular Linux distributionsI’m not a Microsoft fan boy…but Win2K3 is at least from a security standpoint, a very excellent offeringI would choose Linux or more likely FreeBSD…but for reasons other than security 2003-07-21 5:43 pm Let’s see-In a few short clicks I can install a fast, easy to use server, which runs on pretty much any PC type system.But I really have to pay for it (unless I use the leaked enterprise code, or a crack or something…). That’s too risky an option for a business, but it is available.Or, I can spend a few hours configuring and tweaking Freebsd, which may or may not install on my system, given the hardware specs (there is a strong bias towards legacy sound, video, and other hardware).I’m not a troll, but I wouldn’t want to waste my time configuring any open source server. Not if I can do it with a couple of mouse clicks in 2003, and particularly if I can convince the company to pay for 2003. Then I can get on to the real issues-making sure all the applciations I run on the server (mail, web server, legacy applications, whatever) work.As for security: anyone that relies on any systems’ default security (oh, you can’t get root…riiiiiight) is a fool, particularly on the enterprise level. Plain and simple. 2003-07-21 5:45 pm Seems they did cut the vulnerabilities in half, 1 a month now instead of 2.2003-06-09: Microsoft Windows FIN-ACK Network Device Driver Frame Padding Information Disclosure Vulnerability2003-06-02: Microsoft Windows 2000/XP/2003 IPV6 ICMP Flood Denial Of Service Vulnerability 2003-07-21 5:53 pm Indeed, w2k3 is a lot better than older versions of windows security-wise, but it’s still not there. And it is absolutely not as secure as Microsoft wants us to believe.It’s also true that some linux distributions are going down the ‘windows road’ lately, sacrifying security for userfriendlyness. I doubt if that’s a good choice, but it seems to sell…It’s all the admin’s choice, but I’d rather have my stuff on a secure box, ran by an admin who isn’t afraid to learn something. Besides, I find *nix easier to administer than windows. In the end, ease of use is just a matter of what you’re used to And re: Justin:A default installation of OpenBSD _is_ secure. But then again, OpenBSD’s default level of security is a bit like the ‘paranoid’ level you have on some linux distro’s 😉 2003-07-21 6:04 pm I think rabbit is on the OpenBSD team…….but like you said before your comparing apples to oranges….plus the fact that thousands of people a day try to break windows…..I can’t imagine that is true of other OS’s…..soe if all the os’s had the same user base I’m sure they would all be about equal. 2003-07-21 6:11 pm Win2K3 has an excellent security track record compared to previous Microsoft offerings and virtually all popular Linux distributionsLOL, it has yet to prove itself. WinNT 4.0 didn’t have any sploits for the first months either ;-). RedHat has tons, sure but how many does it have in a default server install? (Few) 2003-07-21 6:12 pm Yeah, but on average (tounge in cheek) the number is 1 per month hehe. 2003-07-21 6:21 pm I love OpenBSD…and it does many things to be secure by default (including a full security audit of all code going into the base install)…however, there is some measure of security by obscurity helping them with their security track record. (How many VMS or Novell NetWare exploits occured in the past year?)Security flaws are a fact of life. Any non-trivial piece of software will contain bugs no matter how carefully it is written.My point wasn’t that Win2K3 was a secure OS…my point was that it was about as secure as Linux, Solaris, or FreeBSD. Any admin who depends upon the security of the OS in a default install should be fired immediately.I’ve seen people run Windows server boxes that never get hacked, and I’ve seen other people run *nix boxes that are rooted constantly…it all depends upon the paranoia and diligence of the admin. 2003-07-21 6:54 pm No I’m not on the OpenBSD team. Not at all. I’m just a happy OpenBSD user.And indeed, w2k3 has a better security track record than previous MS OS’s, and maybe even some linux distributions, but not those claiming to be secure out-of-the-box. But w2k3 sure isn’t as secure as Microsoft claims it is. Not at all.Also, the number of security holes isn’t an objective criterium for security, as Microsoft tends to minimize the impact of found holes, whereas unices tend to exagerate the possible impact.OpenBSD isn’t as known as windows, so it is under attack less. That’s true in a way: less script kiddies attack OpenBSD boxes. But you can be sure that the more skilled hackers know about OpenBSD, and try breaking its security, because it would be quite an achievement if they can manage to do it.It’s true that security flaws are a fact of life. But seeing how Microsoft handles them alone is enough of a reason not to trust them.And then there’s the admin too of course, often the weakest link in the security of a server. So what do you get with a userfriendly server OS? Yes, more unskilled admins thinking they can manage it… If you dumb down system administration, you get (more) dumb admins.And what will your boss say after you’ve spent a week tuning the 2k3 server, and it’s still not as secure as a 30-min OpenBSD install? 2003-07-21 7:45 pm If you want proof, you can come by and see my pet hackers anytime… 2003-07-21 9:08 pm Step 1-throw away windows server 2003 discsTurn them over, use them as coasters.Step 2-install freeBSDJust can’t argue with that now, can we?Sounds pretty simple to meYeah, Baby! 2003-07-21 11:41 pm A year ago, I used to think *nix was hard. It may seems hard at first, but after 2-3 months, you get used to it. It takes a lot less time to install a *nix server considering you don’t need all that crapyy GUI thingie that takes a lot of resources in Windows.I agree, in some cases, you need a few Windows servers, but for all the major networking services such as web/ftp/dns/mail/etc/firewall servers? You would have to be crazy to rely on Windows.And i would rather have a “paranoid” OS like OpenBSD than anything else.Also, as some said, the worst threat to networking security, is all those lazy admins out there doing the work half the way it should be done.Once you get the feel of ^nix, there’s no way you gonna go back to Windows. Microsoft knows it. That’s probably why they have to Unix-related ads about Win 2k3. 2003-07-22 3:29 am “I installed it, I liked it, then I found that in the 12 hours since I installed it, there were 2 ftp warez servers and an IRC channel that had appeared on it… Oh yea, its secure… I saved a nickel over a secure installation – w00t – go microsoft!”You must be a horibble admin then if that happened. If you are a decent admin and know what you are doing then it doesn’t really matter what OS you use Mr. mick troll.P.S. freeBSD be thy name. 2003-07-22 11:57 am I’m running Win2k3 with the default security settings since the eval is available, my home machine runs 24/7 a day with IIS6 installed. I have had no issues, and I don’t use a firewall either. That FTP server story was a cheap troll attempt. 2003-07-22 5:31 pm Well, I’m not really sure what you are getting at.To say that BSD set to paranoid is more secure than a comparable 2000 or 2003 server is not one that sways me. By default, 2003 is paranoid-all the ports are closed, not that many services run, and you have to give permissions to allow access by users. Sound familiar? Microsoft has been studying the competition.Now, where Microsoft goes wrong is that the underlying OS is remarkably similar to XP, which means that all the attending vulnerabilities (IE, VM, Media Player, etc.), are still possible-and the more you open the system, the more likely someone will be able to use one of these exploits.Open/Free/NetBSD may all be more powerful, configurable, stable, and secure, but seriously: how many corporations want to swap software costs for admin costs? You need a skilled admin to maintain the system, not some fresh out of college kid.With 2003, anyone can figure out how to set up the server, which means I can hire someone more cheaply, and when they move on, someone else can jump right in. That has to have it’s appeal.You’re right, you do get this endless cycle of increasingly unskilled admins, but: since when do businesses ever make the right decision on these things?