2

In a Windows environment where security is more important than flexibility is Windows 2008 R2 Core Server installation the best option? How much more difficult is it to setup an environment with Server Core?

3
  • Welcome to the site. Please make sure you have read the FAQ, at: security.stackexchange.com/faq The question you have asked, as it is, is fairly subjective and open to interpretation. Can you please refine it so that it is more definite and objectively answerable? Otherwise, it may be closed.
    – Iszi
    Feb 11, 2011 at 15:55
  • How is this any more subijective than the other product-specific questions asked?
    – Steve
    Feb 11, 2011 at 16:17
  • @SteveSyfuhs - I'm not sure which questions in particular you're referring to, but anything including "best" in the question is by definition subjective. Some can be modified to still be essentially the same question while not being out-of-bounds, but that is not always the case. Essentially, any question for which there is cannot be an objective, factual, and definite answer, is a subjective one.
    – Iszi
    Feb 11, 2011 at 18:08

1 Answer 1

1

Theoretically Core is more secure than a full installation because of a lower attack surface.

Setting up a core installation requires everything be done via command line, but there are tons of resources out there to help you in the process. With that being said, it is harder to set up than a full installation because it is all manual.

I would recommend you move this over to Sever Fault though.

2
  • Thanks. That's helpful. Also question raised on server fault.
    – user1385
    Feb 11, 2011 at 16:44
  • yfuhs I don't think "is it more secure" should go over to SF, though the "is it more difficult" probably should. It's 2 different questions... Your "lower attack surface" bit would probably get missed at SF (+1 for that, btw)
    – AviD
    Feb 13, 2011 at 7:39

You must log in to answer this question.