3 ms·

> to bash MS products. Microsoft gives them a lot of ammo. While, as I said, Microsoft et al. have seen that SMB is indeed efficient, at the same time securit

by topspin 10mo ago

> to bash MS products. Microsoft gives them a lot of ammo. While, as I said, Microsoft et al. have seen that SMB is indeed efficient, at the same time security has been neglected to the point of being farcical. You can see this in headlines as recent as last week: Microsoft is only now, in 2025, deprecating RC4 authentication, and this includes SMB. So while one might leverage SMB for high throughput file service, it has always been the case that you can't take any exposure for granted: if it's not locked down by network policies and you don't regularly ensure all the knobs and switches are tweaked just so, it's an open wound, vulnerable to anything that can touch an endpoint or sniff a packet.

whizzter 10mo ago
Agreed, but that used to be the difference between MS and Google. MS would bend backwards to make sure those enterprise Windows 0.24 boxes will still be able to connect to networks because those run some 16bit drivers for CNC machines. Meanwhile Google decided to kill a product the second whoever introduced it on stage walked off it. Azure is a money-maked for MS, and wouldn't be so without those weird legacy enterprise deployments. The big question is if continuing to increase a posture about about security together with an "cloud" focus is actually in their best interest or if retaining those legacy enterprises would have been smarter.