| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Keith C(dot) Perry" <netadmin(at)vcsn(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Shelby Cain <alyandon(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "Uwe C(dot) Schroeder" <uwe(at)oss4u(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Edwin New <edwin_new(at)toll(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? |
| Date: | 2005-03-09 20:37:30 |
| Message-ID: | 422F5E8A.5040202@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
>
>
>The only additional thing I would add to this if it hasn't been mentioned
>already is that 2000 had/has some major security issues and even though 2003 is
>more secure out of the box from what I've experienced so far, I would **never**
>trust a windows box to anything other than my LAN using private IP blocks and if
>it has inbound access via a public IP then it would more certainly be behind
>another firewall that is NAT'ing/Port Forwarding its traffic.
>
>
Nobody should ever put a server regardless of OS on a public IP.
It should always be firewalled/Nat/Port Forwarding.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| jd.vcf | text/x-vcard | 285 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-03-09 20:47:26 | Re: partitionning |
| Previous Message | Keith C. Perry | 2005-03-09 20:34:31 | Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? |