On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:20:52 -0500, "Kevin Hatfield"
<khatfield@fedex.com> wrote:
You're only paranoid if the whole world ISN'T out to get you <grin>
Shouldn't hurt if you secure the directories from all but system and
admin (read: remove EVERYONE group) as these are your "trusted" folks.
Also helps if you are behind (multiple) firewall(s)
Mike
<span style="color:blue">
>Kind of funny though style_emoticons/
>
>He is correct - those directories are being deleted due to the high
>probability of being attacked by viruses/malware. The filenames
>are being deleted because they can either be manipulated or exploited. This
>seems a little paranoid..
>
>Shouldn't actually hurt anything, though.
>
>"Special Access" <nonyabidnezz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:j8n354trperbpajt6ffs0hq55uqsok0jnv@4ax.com...<span style="color:green">
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:55:17 -0500, "Shenan Stanley"
>> <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote:
>><span style="color:darkred">
>>>Mike wrote:
>>>> I was told that the security regulations at my organization require
>>>> me to delete the following files. I was curious if anyone could
>>>> tell me why and possible consequences. Thanks for any help.
>>>>
>>>> Delete:
>>>> ir : c:winntinf
>>>> c:winntinfsystem32drivers
>>>> c:winntinfsystem32driversdllcache
>>>>
>>>> netir : all directories
>>>> nscirda : all directories
>>>> Posix: all directories
>>>> os2 .exe: all directories
>>>> .ex_ : all directories
>>>
>>>Who told you this?
>>>
>>>--
>>>Shenan Stanley
>>> MS-MVP</span>
>>
>> Most likely an over-anxious security person. Even DISA (used to
>> secure Gov't computer systems) doesn't require you to delete all of
>> those files. POSIX and OS2, yes... but not the rest, especially the
>> dllcache directory!
>>
>> Most security folks are of the mindset to eliminate any possibility of
>> compromise. For example, I can take an ex_ file and expand it to
>> allow me to use the exe that is being blocked by security settings
>> elsewhere. This may be stopped by setting the security the same, but
>> most security folks don't think that's enough of a prevention method.
>> Protection in multiple layers, in case one layer is compromised there
>> is another.
>>
>> Mike </span>
></span>