1. Few Highlights from HEPIX/HEPNT Alberto Pace

2. Warning  This is not a comprehensive report.  See Alan Silverman’s excellent summary if you need this (on the DMM web site)  This presentation contains highlights on few arbitrary selected topics that I have been particularly following during the meeting

3. Windows Infrastructure  Windows used at all labs, with or without infrastructure  DESY, IN2P3 and SLAC deploying active directory  Slac focussing on Server 2003 and XP workstation  Desy currently building the “Registry” (== CCDB)  In2p3 Forest in production with 7 labs, total 11 foreseen  Talk from Microsoft on Windows SFU (Services for Unix)

4. Virus and Worms  All labs have dedicated resources for virus and worm tracking  Affects all operating systems and mail  Unmanaged desktop environments are the most exposed to attacks  Taken seriously at all laboratories  Main point: supporting unmanaged desktop is a non- scalable task

5. Mail  Public domain software or Exchange  Slac migrating from Exchange 5.5 to 2003  Anti spam a hot topic  Often an activity with dedicated resources  Many labs using Spamassin or its derivatives  Few implemented Bayesian filters  A constant race between spammers and mail administrators  No labs currently using commercial products  Some labs seeks collaborations, other seeks commercial solutions

6. Other points  Password synchronization  While waiting for single sign-on technologies, SLAC, FNAL introducing Unix/Windows password synchronization. Jlab already did it several years ago.  From the user point of view, similar to single sign on  Certificate distribution issues  Certificates will be used for grid authentication and could be used for secure email and web authentication  A technology that has proven to be reliable, but that end-users often do not understand the technology leading to insecure environments. A centralized management / identity management necessary  Windows Terminal Services  User successfully at DESY, SLAC, Oxford, RAL. CERN is not pioneering this area.

7. Conclusion  Useful meeting, lot of technical content, several in depth technical peer-to-peer discussions  Same technologies used across all labs means similar problems  Plenty of synergies and opportunities  Sharing ideas works very well, cross-lab collaborations more difficult but possible