>The problem here is that, justified or not, the WSH has been turned off by some, due to a perceived risk of virus infections, especially.
>
>So, the question is not so much whether it SHOULD be turned off, but whether it actually is.
>
>And once it is turned off, it might be difficult to convince top management to turn it on again.
>
>>I disagree. A security conscience world should've turned off many things before WSH, which is just 7th in the security risk for Windows, and much easier to overcome the risk compared to say, SQL Server or Internet Explorer, both widely used and/or widely recommended for those "security advocates" that recommend to turn off WSH.
>>
>>Oh! I just checked again, and WSH even dropped from the top ten list.
>>
>>http://www.sans.org/top20/#w1

I understand that, Hilmar, and completely disagree with the need and the reasons to turn off WSH. I never heard of anyone even suggesting not to use IIS, or SQL Server, both present a worst security risk than WSH. Oh! and what about ASP.NET? How many times did you hear that it should not be used for it present a serious security risk? Yeah, me neither, the risk is "acceptable" in this case.