CastleCops® - Should Enterprises Dump Outlook?

Microsoft's New Outlook

Every IT manager is familiar with the weighing of features, reliability and cost-effectiveness that goes into every software purchase decision. When considering the Exchange/Outlook quandary, it is important to remember two things.

First, Outlook is just a front end that can be used with other server engines besides Exchange. Attacks are sometimes directed specifically at the Outlook client, but other security issues can be traced to operating system and framework problems, especially in systems that are cobbled together from components acquired at different times. In other words, not every security threat spreads via Microsoft's enterprise e-mail products.

Second, Microsoft itself is hardly content with its mixed reputation, and is doing its part to address security concerns while continuing to develop its feature set. The company's "Trustworthy Computing" initiative involves extensive security reviews of its enterprise (and consumer) software, and results have been substantial. As Mark Levitt, vice president for collaborative computing at IDC, told NewsFactor, it is "disproportionate targeting" of Microsoft that makes such tightening necessary in the first place. "Outlook doesn't deserve the bad reputation it has," he said.

Regrouping in Redmond

Aberdeen Group research director Dana Gardner concurred, invoking a Spy-vs.-Spy scenario in which Microsoft battles hackers, staying barely a step ahead. He also told NewsFactor that Outlook-related security issues have not been as severe lately as in the past.

And with Exchange Server 2003 (formerly and evocatively code-named Titanium) coming down the pike in mid-2003, Microsoft is promising greater cost-effectiveness and server consolidation. That is a significant potential benefit, since the ability to run enterprise communications using fewer machines is a core value of network administration. In its own internal migration to Exchange 2003, for example, Microsoft intends to reduce the number of e-mail servers in its U.S. network from 70 to 20.

Also, in recent press releases, Microsoft has emphasized the ease of upgrading to Exchange 2003 -- not a trivial benefit for time-pressed IT administrators, if it proves to be the case.

The Price of Change

Does all of this mean it is not worthwhile to migrate from Outlook/Exchange to an alternate solution? The answer depends on several factors. True, software migration is painful for administrators, business departments, technicians and end users, but in some cases, the results are worth the pain.

The decision to abandon Microsoft e-mail solutions seems unthinkably futile to some -- but other experts say the expense of migration and retraining is a necessary cost of correcting a mistake that never should have been made.

Judson Whiting, formerly an IT manager at SBC Communications (NYSE: SBC) and now a systems consultant who has managed back-end conversions for Aetna and Unisys (NYSE: UIS) , is in the latter camp. He told NewsFactor that he prefers safer alternatives to Microsoft. Whiting emphasized the damage of service disruption and said he takes the long view of cost-effectiveness. "What's the cost incurred in a day-long interruption?" he said. "And over the course of time, what pays out better?"

Levitt, on the other hand, said dumping Outlook solely because of hackers would be short-sighted. He stressed that Outlook is the most feature-rich client that can be paired with Exchange, and that replacing just one end of the equation (either Exchange on the back end or Outlook on the front end) will not necessarily solve security problems.

Article source and further details: �

Ecommerce Times


	2002-2008 � Computer Cops LLC dba CastleCops®. All rights reserved. Acceptable Use Policy. Use signifies your agreement. 153ppm 0.273s (0.045s) Making cybercriminals unhappy since 2002*