Guest Brian A. Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Re: Securing Windows 98(SE) in the Modern Age "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:u7UhLCMHIHA.1316@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > > "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message > news:eG0HDqFHIHA.3768@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message > | news:eVWKT3AHIHA.4592@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > | > > | > > | > "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message > | > news:O9IlJf5GIHA.3600@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message > | > | news:%238DnevoGIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > | > | > > | > | > > | > | > "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message > | > | > news:%23rT65QmGIHA.4808@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > | > | > | "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > | > | > | news:6ADCFC6A-B689-4DF8-ADC8-3527FB29FE0A@microsoft.com... > | > | > | >I will focus on your last question and I think Chris Quirke, MVP > | > would > | > | > agree > | > | > | > with me that Windows 98 Second Edition is safer than XP > | > Professional. > | > | > Here > | > | > | > are my web-links to prove my case: > | > | > | > > | > | > | > http://secunia.com/product/22/ > | > | > | > > | > | > | > Vendor Microsoft > | > | > | > > | > | > | > > | > | > | > Product Link N/A > | > | > | > > | > | > | > > | > | > | > Affected By 192 Secunia advisories > | > | > | > > | > | > | > > | > | > | > Unpatched 16% (30 of 192 Secunia advisories) > | > | > | > > | > | > | > > | > | > | > Most Critical Unpatched > | > | > | > The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft > | > Windows > | > | > XP > | > | > | > Professional, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Highly > | > critical > | > | > | > > | > | > | > http://secunia.com/product/13/ > | > | > | > > | > | > | > Vendor Microsoft > | > | > | > > | > | > | > > | > | > | > Product Link N/A > | > | > | > > | > | > | > > | > | > | > Affected By 32 Secunia advisories > | > | > | > > | > | > | > > | > | > | > Unpatched 9% (3 of 32 Secunia advisories) > | > | > | > > | > | > | > > | > | > | > Most Critical Unpatched > | > | > | > The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft > | > Windows > | > | > 98 > | > | > | > Second Edition, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less > | > critical > | > | > | > > | > | > | > > | > | > | > That is my case. > | > | > | > | > | > | I responded without question. The only way 98 is safer than XP > Pro > | > is > | > | > because it's > | > | > | not targeted, that's all and no more. When XP Pro is configured > | > properly > | > | > it is by > | > | > | far more secure than 98. Soon enough XP will be forgotten > altogether > | > as > | > | > the full > | > | > | attack goes Vista, and so on. > | > | > | > | > | > | -- > | > | > | > | > | > | Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User } > | > | > | > | > | > > | > | > I disagree. As XP is based upon the same base code as VISTA it will > | > always > | > | > be attacked, and vigorously. > | > | > | > | As long as it has the name of Microsoft attached to it, it will be > | > targeted. > | > > | > Not necessarily true. Should Microsoft lose its market mastery, then > | > whatever takes its place would become the target. > | > | It would only be not necessarily true if the MS name was retained, A > Rose Is A > | Rose...... > > Hmm, that's a difficult one to respond to... let's think along these lines: > suppose with the new Intel processor [the super chip supposedly due in five > or so years] that SUN produces the OS that really makes the chip *spark* and > Microsoft is [some might say "as usual"] incapable of producing a quality > product to support the chip to its full advantage [regardless of Intel's > attempts to help]{we need look no further that the VISTA problems and > Microsoft's inability to adequately address the issues, to date}. Microsoft > loses its market dominance as the business/commercial world converts to > SUN's product. Or let's say that [since Unix is quite capable of being > scaled to the processor] a Linux variant is deemed the most viable OS. > > Is it your contention that because of some *love affair* by the consumer > and investor for Microsoft, it will remain the market leader? > > Or is it your contention that Microsoft can never lose its market > dominance? Neither of the above, I read into the statement a bit different. If MS lost it's dominance in the market with no foreseeable future comeback, MS would no longer exist unless some type of conditional merge/buyout was executed which retained the name in some way or another. If the name is still attached the name is still attacked. <snipped> -- Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User } Conflicts start where information lacks. http://basconotw.mvps.org/ Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
Guest MEB Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 Re: Securing Windows 98(SE) in the Modern Age "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message news:Olkk2SMHIHA.4808@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message | news:u7UhLCMHIHA.1316@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... | > | > | > "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message | > news:eG0HDqFHIHA.3768@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message | > | news:eVWKT3AHIHA.4592@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... | > | > | > | > | > | > "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message | > | > news:O9IlJf5GIHA.3600@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message | > | > | news:%238DnevoGIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message | > | > | > news:%23rT65QmGIHA.4808@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... | > | > | > | "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message | > | > | > | news:6ADCFC6A-B689-4DF8-ADC8-3527FB29FE0A@microsoft.com... | > | > | > | >I will focus on your last question and I think Chris Quirke, MVP | > | > would | > | > | > agree | > | > | > | > with me that Windows 98 Second Edition is safer than XP | > | > Professional. | > | > | > Here | > | > | > | > are my web-links to prove my case: | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > http://secunia.com/product/22/ | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Vendor Microsoft | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Product Link N/A | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Affected By 192 Secunia advisories | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Unpatched 16% (30 of 192 Secunia advisories) | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Most Critical Unpatched | > | > | > | > The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft | > | > Windows | > | > | > XP | > | > | > | > Professional, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Highly | > | > critical | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > http://secunia.com/product/13/ | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Vendor Microsoft | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Product Link N/A | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Affected By 32 Secunia advisories | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Unpatched 9% (3 of 32 Secunia advisories) | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Most Critical Unpatched | > | > | > | > The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft | > | > Windows | > | > | > 98 | > | > | > | > Second Edition, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less | > | > critical | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > That is my case. | > | > | > | | > | > | > | I responded without question. The only way 98 is safer than XP | > Pro | > | > is | > | > | > because it's | > | > | > | not targeted, that's all and no more. When XP Pro is configured | > | > properly | > | > | > it is by | > | > | > | far more secure than 98. Soon enough XP will be forgotten | > altogether | > | > as | > | > | > the full | > | > | > | attack goes Vista, and so on. | > | > | > | | > | > | > | -- | > | > | > | | > | > | > | Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User } | > | > | > | | > | > | > | > | > | > I disagree. As XP is based upon the same base code as VISTA it will | > | > always | > | > | > be attacked, and vigorously. | > | > | | > | > | As long as it has the name of Microsoft attached to it, it will be | > | > targeted. | > | > | > | > Not necessarily true. Should Microsoft lose its market mastery, then | > | > whatever takes its place would become the target. | > | | > | It would only be not necessarily true if the MS name was retained, A | > Rose Is A | > | Rose...... | > | > Hmm, that's a difficult one to respond to... let's think along these lines: | > suppose with the new Intel processor [the super chip supposedly due in five | > or so years] that SUN produces the OS that really makes the chip *spark* and | > Microsoft is [some might say "as usual"] incapable of producing a quality | > product to support the chip to its full advantage [regardless of Intel's | > attempts to help]{we need look no further that the VISTA problems and | > Microsoft's inability to adequately address the issues, to date}. Microsoft | > loses its market dominance as the business/commercial world converts to | > SUN's product. Or let's say that [since Unix is quite capable of being | > scaled to the processor] a Linux variant is deemed the most viable OS. | > | > Is it your contention that because of some *love affair* by the consumer | > and investor for Microsoft, it will remain the market leader? | > | > Or is it your contention that Microsoft can never lose its market | > dominance? | | Neither of the above, I read into the statement a bit different. If MS lost it's | dominance in the market with no foreseeable future comeback, MS would no longer exist | unless some type of conditional merge/buyout was executed which retained the name in | some way or another. If the name is still attached the name is still attacked. | | <snipped> {Another slap up side da head} Of course, I now follow your point.. perhaps it was the "rose is a rose" ... maybe "a horse by any other name is still a horse" Of course I doubt Microsoft would ever fade in such fashion,, it is rather diverse now, and has definitely a deep impact in the "gaming" market {perhaps to the detriment of its OS activities}... | | | -- | | Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User } | Conflicts start where information lacks. | http://basconotw.mvps.org/ | -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com ________ | Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm | How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 | |
Guest Curt Christianson Posted November 3, 2007 Posted November 3, 2007 Re: Securing Windows 98(SE) in the Modern Age Brian, You gave yourself away!! <rvvf> -- HTH, Curt Windows Support Center http://www.aumha.org Practically Nerded,... http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message news:eG0HDqFHIHA.3768@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message | news:eVWKT3AHIHA.4592@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... | > | > | > "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message | > news:O9IlJf5GIHA.3600@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message | > | news:%238DnevoGIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... | > | > | > | > | > | > "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message | > | > news:%23rT65QmGIHA.4808@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... | > | > | "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message | > | > | news:6ADCFC6A-B689-4DF8-ADC8-3527FB29FE0A@microsoft.com... | > | > | >I will focus on your last question and I think Chris Quirke, MVP | > would | > | > agree | > | > | > with me that Windows 98 Second Edition is safer than XP | > Professional. | > | > Here | > | > | > are my web-links to prove my case: | > | > | > | > | > | > http://secunia.com/product/22/ | > | > | > | > | > | > Vendor Microsoft | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Product Link N/A | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Affected By 192 Secunia advisories | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Unpatched 16% (30 of 192 Secunia advisories) | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Most Critical Unpatched | > | > | > The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft | > Windows | > | > XP | > | > | > Professional, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Highly | > critical | > | > | > | > | > | > http://secunia.com/product/13/ | > | > | > | > | > | > Vendor Microsoft | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Product Link N/A | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Affected By 32 Secunia advisories | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Unpatched 9% (3 of 32 Secunia advisories) | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Most Critical Unpatched | > | > | > The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft | > Windows | > | > 98 | > | > | > Second Edition, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less | > critical | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > That is my case. | > | > | | > | > | I responded without question. The only way 98 is safer than XP Pro | > is | > | > because it's | > | > | not targeted, that's all and no more. When XP Pro is configured | > properly | > | > it is by | > | > | far more secure than 98. Soon enough XP will be forgotten altogether | > as | > | > the full | > | > | attack goes Vista, and so on. | > | > | | > | > | -- | > | > | | > | > | Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User } | > | > | | > | > | > | > I disagree. As XP is based upon the same base code as VISTA it will | > always | > | > be attacked, and vigorously. | > | | > | As long as it has the name of Microsoft attached to it, it will be | > targeted. | > | > Not necessarily true. Should Microsoft lose its market mastery, then | > whatever takes its place would become the target. | | It would only be not necessarily true if the MS name was retained, A Rose Is A | Rose...... | | > | > | | > | > The coding differentials are so minuscule, that even if specific to | > VISTA, | > | > the attack will work upon XP with equal if not more effectiveness, and | > even | > | > less difficulty as there will be less to work-around. What hacks VISTA | > | > *WILL* hack XP. | > | | > | In many of those aspects, true, but not in every one. As code changes | > so do the | > | targeted systems, that's not saying Vista will pull away from XP, yet it | > can and will | > | change in ways. | > | > Well, of course I would by necessity agree in part. There will be VISTA | > *only* hacks created sometime in the future, but for the present time, as | > the coding is shared [XP now in the position that 9X was during the XP><9X | > support days, e.g., receiving patches more designed for VISTA than XP] these | > shared aspects will continue to supply the necessary entry points. | > Regretfully, it appears Microsoft shows even less interest in patching all | > the holes in XP than it did with 9X or even NT. | > | > | | > | > 9X on the other hand, will receive less and less attention. One need | > look | > | > no further than this group. There aren't many people who can even write | > a | > | > simple batch file for 9X/DOS anymore. | > | > Not saying there will be no attacks, as there is still sufficient viri, | | Although a late response, more of an understanding, I'm sure you meant "can't". | The people are out there yet they move on with the code. | | > | | > | Watch yourself and gear up for battle using the word viri, there are | > those out here | > | that will chastise you for it, been there already. | > | > Yeah, I remember those... strange that semantics such as that tend to bring | > lengthy discussions, as if those are world shaking/changing. | > | > | | > | > hacks, and Spyware available [and targeted at installable 9X files]. But | > it | > | > brings no recognition, and the OS is not being used now [very much | > anyway] | > | > within supposedly secured areas and businesses as XP and VISTA are... | > | | > | That doesn't make 98 any more secure, only less vulnerable. | > | > Hmm, that seems to create a contrast. If less vulnerable [be it because of | > lack of interest or otherwise], then by mere extension, it becomes more | > secure. Less interest attended towards attacking, less chances of being | > attacked = by omission > more secure. | | It's not more secure simply because it isn't a major player anymore, although | unlikely the game can turn 180 at any time. | | > | > | | > | > | > | > You can ignore these rather obvious aspects and continue to spout how | > | > supposedly secure the newer operating systems are, but that smacks in | > the | > | > face of the purpose of the attacks... glamour, fame, recognition, ID | > theft, | > | > and all the other things now found with those NEW OSs... and the systems | > | > which use them.. | > | | > | I don't continue to spout about anything, I'm certainly not on any | > crusade to push | > | a product (not stating you implied that). I stated that a "Properly | > Configured" XP | > | Pro machine is by far more secure than 98. That's not saying it's less | > vulnerable to | > | attack or that it can't be compromised, it states that it can be locked | > down tighter | > | when properly configured. The "glamour, fame, recognition, ID theft," | > etc. is a Cat | > | and Mouse game that will never end and it most certainly isn't only | > utilized with | > | PC's. | > | > Spout was used to instill a conversation... I realize you're not really a | > Microsoft clone ... | > | > True,,, in part. XP and VISTA can be locked down *tighter*, however, they | > [the newer OSs] also contain far more aspects [vulnerabilities if you will] | > that can be hacked. From ingrained AutoUpdating, to pre-configured | > Firewalls, to the basic networking aspects broadcast to the world, to UPnP, | > to .... The fact that these are OSs designed FOR networking brings with them | > unprecedented potential vulnerabilities. | > Hackers no longer need to LOOK for the code [determine which third party | > program was used], it came with their own systems. They no longer need to | > OBSERVE the packet signatures, just for the OS indicators [and they know | > them well]. Each time Microsoft patches anything, they get those same | > updates, and adjust accordingly ... | > | > We could even go the route of *root kits*, though there we would need to | > again address the old style [for example] 9X/DOS *cult of the mad cow* hacks | > now generally considered as virus, whereas, these newer systems, by their | > very design, are inherently more vulnerable and thereby, difficulties | > expanded in preventing such attacks. PGP, in its day, was 4096 and above | > cipher... yet this same style of *trust* and *keys* is employed as the MAJOR | > security aspect in XP and VISTA but at a significantly lesser strength, and | > following standards of the government, designed by the government, and | > suggested by the government. That is something that everyone should at least | > question ... | > I mean [for example], Verisign? Who determined that was a trusted source? | > Its a business, and EBERY business is out for profit,,, and ALWAYS | > potentially for sale ... | > | > The point is, these OSs are designed around pre-determined trust ... | > | > | | > | > | > | > To say the XP is more secure is like putting your head in a paper bag | > and | > | > claiming no one can see you... | > | | > | That's ridiculous, your arms and legs still show, you need a full body | > bag. | > | > Yes, that is a little ridiculous isn't it... of course you could wear one | > of those whole body Halloween condom costumes <G>... | | | | | -- | | Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User } | Conflicts start where information lacks. | http://basconotw.mvps.org/ | | Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm | How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 | |
Recommended Posts