var sidebar_align = 'right';
var content_container_margin = parseInt('350px');
var sidebar_width = parseInt('330px');
Which one is better in matter of security
I want to know which server version is most reliable in matter of Security and secure on dedicated server with root access.
1)windows 2000 Server
2)windows 2003 Server Standard Edition
both are as secure as you can make them.
If you're talking about default security I'd say neither.
Don't relay on defaults.
it means that server security is more then putting firewall/antivirus etc and other recommand security settings of OS. Please anyone tell me where I can find informations to secure my server at optimal level.
www.windowsecurity.com should give you a nice start
thanks for your help Yeah it is good for windows security.
I would go with 2003 and clamp it down as much as possible with the docs mentioned above.
Windows 2000 comes by default with a lot of settings open, by default Windows 2003 installs with most ports and settings set more securely.
I'd imagine Microsoft is more focused on security patches for Win2k3 than Win2k also.
2k3 in a heartbeat. While it's true you need to do work to secure them above and beyond default install... on default install 2k3 is heads and shoulders above 2k. There's not even a question.
I would go with 2k3 as well , and lock it down as much as possible.
wait what am I saying I would go with CentOS .. J/K