Speaking Out
Regarding Mark Smith's column Fast Forward: "MCSEs Speak Out" (February 2004, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 41392), I think the MCSE and other certifications (e.g., CNE) are overrated. I don't see any way that holding a certification could translate into a $14,000 per year increase in salary. Just because someone holds a certification doesn't mean that person can apply his or her certified knowledge in a practical way. I hear people talking about how valuable certification is in the absence of experience, and that doesn't wash with me. I have both certified and uncertified people working for me, and the certified folks aren't necessarily better at their job. For the record, I'm uncertified.
—Rod Larse
rodl@spokanefalls.edu
A few years ago, some business associates and I went out for sushi after working on a Microsoft Exchange Server installation. One of the guys handed the waiter his MCP card as a joke. The server returned it promptly because it wouldn't "take a charge." Another member of the group, who has fun solving problems, began to figure out what it would cost Microsoft to buy lunch for MCSEs. I don't remember the details, but my friend's conclusion was that Microsoft could afford to buy a modest lunch for every MCSE every workday for a year with very little harm to the company's bottom line.
I didn't get certified to make money for Microsoft. I got certified to advance my career, and it has. My certification has also helped Microsoft to make plenty of money. I see this relationship as a partnership. In the current IT business climate, Microsoft could go further to encourage loyalty and restore some luster to its somewhat tattered flagship credential. A TechNet+ subscription would be the perfect benefit to MCSEs because it would help us do our job. Of course, if Microsoft wanted to offer free lunches, I'd jump at that deal, too.
—Ron Sanders
rsanders@cns.tstc.edu
Problems with SUS Clients
My organization is using Microsoft Software Update Services (SUS) in a test environment. We're having trouble with booting the client workstations. If I understand SUS correctly, when updates are applied at the Graphical Identification and Navigation (GINA) screen, the workstations should reboot automatically. However, our workstations aren't rebooting, and our end users can't log on until they reboot their machine manually. We run Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 (SP3) with the Novell 4.83 SP1 client installed.
—David Vincent
dvincen@pisd.edu
I've never heard of this problem. However, I can recommend a few places to start looking for answers. First, make sure that the most current Automatic Updates client is installed on your client workstations. Second, look in each client machine's Event Viewer to determine whether the updates are installing and that messages related to reboots are displayed. Third, verify that any Group Policy or registry entries on the clients are set to reboot after updates install if no one is logged on to them at the time of installation.
—Ed Roth
Plugging Mobile Worm Holes
I really enjoyed Michael Otey's Editorial: "Plug the Mobile Worm Hole" (January 2004, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 41112) because a situation almost identical to the one he describes happened to my company. In our case, a developer was rebuilding software on his laptop and hadn't yet brought the patches up-to-date when his machine became infected with the Welchia worm. From his laptop, the worm spread to five other machines and essentially shut down our Internet and email access (we use an Internet-based third-party email provider). I discovered the problem when I noticed that the activity lights on our firewall were constantly running solid and that the system was producing 5 to 10 oversized firewall logs in a day, instead of the typical 1 or 2 usual-sized logs. After we employed a Welchia worm remover that we downloaded from the Symantec Web site and applied the necessary patches to the developer's laptop, we were finally able to restore our network to its proper operation. Our office network was down for almost 2 business days.
—Rich Lichvar
richard.lichvar@verizon.net
I found Michael Otey's "Plug the Mobile Worm Hole" interesting because it brings to light an often-ignored problem. A few months ago, my company began discussing ways to protect our network from internal invasion by laptops and other mobile devices that have been exposed to the Internet without the protection of our firewalls and proxy servers. We've been fortunate so far and haven't suffered damage by virus or worm infiltration. However, we understand that relying on past fortune is unwise.
I think Michael's article stops short of addressing the real problem of protecting laptops from being compromised in ways that would make them Trojan horses that malicious users could use to move undesirable programming code inside a protected corporate network. What about port monitors or personal firewall products? Is there any point to turning a system that needs protection into a system that provides protection? Do products exist that can serve as "cleaning stations" to scrub travel-weary computers of foreign computer infections? Maybe the market has room for an "early bird" product that could "get the worm" before it gets the user. These questions would make for an interesting and informative article. I hope writing such an article is something Michael will consider.
—Erick Reverski
enr@niroinc.com
Defending the corporate network against what the mobile-client-device cat might drag in is a topic of high interest to our readers, and you'll find several articles in the magazine's archive that describe solutions to this security problem. For example, "Personal Firewalls" (http://www.winnetmag.com, Instant Doc ID 25348) presents an in-depth look at six popular personal firewall products for Windows machines. "Arrest Suspect Clients with Windows 2003's New Quarantine Feature" (http://www.winnetmag.com, Instant Doc ID 40047) discusses the functionality in Windows Server 2003 that lets you ensure that remote clients meet minimal security requirements before they can connect to your corporate network. I encourage you to search our Web site for additional information related to this topic area, and in the meantime, we'll bug Michael for another article.
—Janet Robbins
Editor in Chief
Pulling It Together
I just finished reading Randy Franklin Smith's article "L2TP Remote Access" (January 2004, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 41107). I've been studying for my Windows 2000 MCSE and have read many articles and books about Certificate Authority (CA), Network Address Translation (NAT), Internet Authentication Service (IAS), and Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) but was never able to put all the pieces together in a way that made sense to me. I understood each element's purpose and how it worked, but the elements remained isolated components. Randy's article finally pulled them together for me so that I now see the big picture. I feel that Randy covered this topic masterfully, and I look forward to reading more of his articles.
—Jose Esteves
jesteves@wi.rr.com
OOPS
The Buyer's Guide: "Email Security Suites" (February 2004, http://www.winnetmag.com, Instant Doc ID 41397) inadvertently omitted Intellireach's MessageScreen Platinum from the table of product listings. For information about MessageScreen Platinum, refer to the updated table on our Web site, or contact Intellireach directly at http://www.intellireach.com.
In Mark Minasi's Windows Power Tools: "Integral Reg" (January 2004, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 41109), the correct name of the value that, when added to the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SYSTEM/CurrentControlSet/Services/i8042prt/Parameters registry subkey, creates the CrashOnCtrlScroll value is /v CrashOnCtrlScroll. We apologize for any inconvenience these errors might have caused.
What's Your Messaging Profile?
Windows & .NET Magazine wants to know! How do your email habits stack up against your peers? Are you a once-a-day email checker, or are you in and out of your Inbox almost continually? The following table summarizes some of the findings from the Osterman Research Survey on Messaging Issues, which Osterman Research conducted January 20 through February 2, 2004. The results reflect responses from 320 technical and non-technical employees from small, medium, and large organizations. To view more results, click here. (Copyright 2004, Osterman Research, Inc. Reprinted with permission.) And let us know how you compare: Send your message to letters@winnetmag.com, or add your comments to the article on our Web site.
End of Article
