A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows 98 » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Securing Windows 98(SE) in the Modern Age



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 25th 07, 02:13 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Dan
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,089
Default Securing Windows 98(SE) in the Modern Age

1. I would suggest using a wired connection with ethernet and a NAT address
within your router. You can go to grc.com and check the Shields Up test to
see if over 1000 ports are stealthed with green setting.

2. I would suggest making sure your Windows 98 Second Edition and its
associated updates are fully up to date and would suggest using the security
cd if you have it although you will have to edit the *.inf as PCR has
suggested to show to some programs that it is indeed 98 Second Edition. You
will need to use the Windows update site after that. I cannot endorse the
use of non-approproved Microsoft update packs and they may or may not work
but use them at your own risk and make sure your PC is backed up fully before
installing one of course.

3. I would suggest using an antivirus program like AVG antivirus that has
worked well for me and my dad or Avast that many users here seem to like but
I did not care for its interface.

4. I would suggest using anti-spyware programs and the ones I particularly
like for 98 Second Edition are SpywareBlaster and Spybot Search and Destroy.
Please make sure you get them from their main sites or a fairly safe
alternative like majorgeeks.com website. I do not care for Adaware any more
because of false positives in the past. Another one is CWShredder if you
need it and HiJack This but with HiJackThis make sure experts help you and
just don't go willy nilly and delete potentially good and needed stuff on
your machine.

5. I would suggest using Mozilla Firefox version 2.0.0.8 or its latest
version for better browser security and safety over Internet Explorer.
Mozilla Firefox supports 256 bit cipher strength in Windows 98 that Microsoft
only supports 256 bit cipher strength in Vista with Internet Explorer
currently. Internet Explorer also has Active X vulnerabilites that are
targetted frequently. The same goes for you Apple users and Linux users as
well. Safari for Apple only has a maximum encryption of 128 bit so it is
lacking as well. I have discovered that 128 bit encryption can be hacked in
15 minutes or less with 2 or 3 Craig Supercomputers working on the encryption
strength cipher and that is why the industry is way behind on this. Bank of
America and Citicards continue to use only 128 bit encryption and Bank of
America does not seem to care but at least Citicards said they are working on
implementing Mozilla Firefox with 256 bit encryption. The safest way is to
post information on an off-line computer of course but industry standards are
lacking compared to the latest threats available on-line to break computer
encryption.

6. Please practice safe browsing methods and do not open email attachments
until you are sure they are safe. Be aware of the many phising scams out
there and especially ones that claim to be from Microsoft or someone or other
wanting information or money because it is not what it claims to be
especially if it sounds to good to be true. Contact the business from their
main number from the telephone book or the back of your bank or from your
business card. Information can help if you get stuck as well. Please also
block html code as a default precaution and only view when you are sure it is
safe. You can read in plain text and send in plain text and that is fairly
safe.

7. Please be aware that information you post on the Internet is available
for everyone to view so just remember how much information you are willing to
freely give the public about yourself.

8. Please be careful about social-networking sites like MySpace and/or
Facebook and others that could data mine your information. Heck, a website
which was one I enjoyed posting at which was tsl-game.com had its forum
hacked this summer with 9-11 propaganda posted. Here is the weblink if any
are interested in reading about it:

http://www.tsl-game.com/forum/index.php?topic=6115.0

9. Please be careful who you trust especially if you are younger than 21
because there are a lot of terrible people out there that ruthlessly prey
upon weak and innocent children and hurt women also so the Internet has
become a tool to try and force some people in bad situations to be monitored
so much that they are like slaves.

10. A final word is to be careful what you download because if it is free
games, wallpaper, software, music, etc. then you could be getting more than
you bargain for originally and it is not worth it. You could be opening your
machine up to spyware, adware, trojans, viruses, identity theft, etc. and
lawsuits from the music or other industries against you and please do things
legally.

The end of my 10 comments that are good general computer tips with Windows
98 Second Edition in the front of my mind thus I had no reason to mention
things like Windows Defender that is not supported on 98 Second Edition. If
you check out the secunia.com website and do your research you will see how
much safer Mozilla Firefox is than all versions of Internet Explorer and how
98 Second Edition is safer currently than XP Home and Professional.
Fortunately, Vista is secure but has automatic issues, backwards
compatibility issues and other issues because it is too new. Have a nice day.
  #2  
Old October 25th 07, 06:13 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Don Phillipson
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 524
Default Securing Windows 98(SE) in the Modern Age

"Dan" wrote in message
...

[Good advice snipped]
5. I would suggest using Mozilla Firefox version 2.0.0.8 or its latest
version for better browser security and safety over Internet Explorer.


Better check in advance before dumping IE because some other
computer companies link exclusively with that (and not Firefox.)
E.g. my bank processes work perfectly via Firefox but not
Quicken/Intuit which links only with IE.

A point omitted by Dan is PC housekeeping and backup routines.
We should not use MSBACKUP which is seriously flawed. Hard
drive space is now so cheap we seldom need to compress backed up
files. Windows protection prevents our copying some important system
files but some third-party utilities bypass this, see www.xxcopy.com

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)


  #3  
Old October 26th 07, 07:50 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Brian A.
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 748
Default Securing Windows 98(SE) in the Modern Age

"Dan" wrote in message
...
1. I would suggest using a wired connection with ethernet and a NAT address
within your router. You can go to grc.com and check the Shields Up test to
see if over 1000 ports are stealthed with green setting.


Without going back to check, IIRC the GRC port test checks 1500 ports. If the user
has no router and does not use a sufficient third party firewall it means nothing.
If they do have a router incorporated into their network, it also means squat if they
fail to change the default un/pw provided with the router. In todays cat and mouse
battle with the way hackers have progressed, one of the first lines of defense is to
change the default un/pw of any router utilized in a network.


2. I would suggest making sure your Windows 98 Second Edition and its
associated updates are fully up to date and would suggest using the security
cd if you have it although you will have to edit the *.inf as PCR has
suggested to show to some programs that it is indeed 98 Second Edition. You
will need to use the Windows update site after that. I cannot endorse the
use of non-approproved Microsoft update packs and they may or may not work
but use them at your own risk and make sure your PC is backed up fully before
installing one of course.


IMHO the security update CD is not the way to go other than the rare exception
after a clean install. If a user has a reasonably fast connection on the net,
downloading and installing the updates will be much quicker than any read/write from
a CD.


3. I would suggest using an antivirus program like AVG antivirus that has
worked well for me and my dad or Avast that many users here seem to like but
I did not care for its interface.


Again, IMHO AVG is crap, Avast is subliminal. Either way, both apps will sooner
than later be integrated into a suite and no longer support 98.


4. I would suggest using anti-spyware programs and the ones I particularly
like for 98 Second Edition are SpywareBlaster and Spybot Search and Destroy.
Please make sure you get them from their main sites or a fairly safe
alternative like majorgeeks.com website. I do not care for Adaware any more
because of false positives in the past. Another one is CWShredder if you
need it and HiJack This but with HiJackThis make sure experts help you and
just don't go willy nilly and delete potentially good and needed stuff on
your machine.


Without knowing your exact situation I will venture to guess that the Adaware
false/positives had to do with cookies and/or MRU's. Adaware has always been a good
compliment to SB S&D and visa versa, each one identifying something the other didn't.


5. I would suggest using Mozilla Firefox version 2.0.0.8 or its latest
version for better browser security and safety over Internet Explorer.
Mozilla Firefox supports 256 bit cipher strength in Windows 98 that Microsoft
only supports 256 bit cipher strength in Vista with Internet Explorer
currently. Internet Explorer also has Active X vulnerabilites that are
targetted frequently. The same goes for you Apple users and Linux users as
well. Safari for Apple only has a maximum encryption of 128 bit so it is
lacking as well. I have discovered that 128 bit encryption can be hacked in
15 minutes or less with 2 or 3 Craig Supercomputers working on the encryption
strength cipher and that is why the industry is way behind on this. Bank of
America and Citicards continue to use only 128 bit encryption and Bank of
America does not seem to care but at least Citicards said they are working on
implementing Mozilla Firefox with 256 bit encryption. The safest way is to
post information on an off-line computer of course but industry standards are
lacking compared to the latest threats available on-line to break computer
encryption.


Personally IMHO again, your PC and/or network are only as secure as one makes it.
It makes no difference on which browser a user deploys when it comes to online sites,
the difference in security has to do with the administrator of that site and how well
they lock it down.


6. Please practice safe browsing methods and do not open email attachments
until you are sure they are safe. Be aware of the many phising scams out
there and especially ones that claim to be from Microsoft or someone or other
wanting information or money because it is not what it claims to be
especially if it sounds to good to be true. Contact the business from their
main number from the telephone book or the back of your bank or from your
business card. Information can help if you get stuck as well. Please also
block html code as a default precaution and only view when you are sure it is
safe. You can read in plain text and send in plain text and that is fairly
safe.


Browsing the net and emails are two separate entities. Aside from that it should
be stated that "No Email" should ever be opened if the sender is unknown to the
reciever.


7. Please be aware that information you post on the Internet is available
for everyone to view so just remember how much information you are willing to
freely give the public about yourself.


Not 100% true depending on how one reads into the statement and the way I read it's
completely false.


8. Please be careful about social-networking sites like MySpace and/or
Facebook and others that could data mine your information. Heck, a website
which was one I enjoyed posting at which was tsl-game.com had its forum
hacked this summer with 9-11 propaganda posted. Here is the weblink if any
are interested in reading about it:

http://www.tsl-game.com/forum/index.php?topic=6115.0

9. Please be careful who you trust especially if you are younger than 21
because there are a lot of terrible people out there that ruthlessly prey
upon weak and innocent children and hurt women also so the Internet has
become a tool to try and force some people in bad situations to be monitored
so much that they are like slaves.

10. A final word is to be careful what you download because if it is free
games, wallpaper, software, music, etc. then you could be getting more than
you bargain for originally and it is not worth it. You could be opening your
machine up to spyware, adware, trojans, viruses, identity theft, etc. and
lawsuits from the music or other industries against you and please do things
legally.

The end of my 10 comments that are good general computer tips with Windows
98 Second Edition in the front of my mind thus I had no reason to mention
things like Windows Defender that is not supported on 98 Second Edition. If
you check out the secunia.com website and do your research you will see how
much safer Mozilla Firefox is than all versions of Internet Explorer and how
98 Second Edition is safer currently than XP Home and Professional.
Fortunately, Vista is secure but has automatic issues, backwards
compatibility issues and other issues because it is too new. Have a nice day.


XP Pro is by far more secure than 98/SE, again, it's up to the user/admin to lock
the system(s) down.


--

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


  #4  
Old October 29th 07, 01:27 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
MEB[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,626
Default Securing Windows 98(SE) in the Modern Age



"Brian A." gonefish'n@afarawaylake wrote in message
...
| "Dan" wrote in message
| ...
| 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 }
| 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
|
|

I disagree. As XP is based upon the same base code as VISTA it will always
be attacked, and vigorously.
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.
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,
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...

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..

To say the XP is more secure is like putting your head in a paper bag and
claiming no one can see you...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________



  #5  
Old October 29th 07, 05:29 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
MEB[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,626
Default Securing Windows 98(SE) in the Modern Age



"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
| MEB wrote:
|
| I disagree. As XP is based upon the same base code as VISTA it
| will always be attacked, and vigorously.
|
| The hackers are not "attacking" OS's.
|
| They are coding to take advantage of vulnerabilities in specific
| modules when such vulnerabilities are discovered or announced.

And let me guess, you think its all the professionals finding the holes....
gees you really are out there in a dream world aren't you..

|
| 9X on the other hand, will receive less and less attention.
|
| Again, it's not the OS's that receive attention - it's the posted
| vulnerabilities that get attention.

OH REALLY. So these vulnerabilities are floating around in thin air
right... if your going to post stupid stuff, do it in some of your other
USENET haunts..

|
| If a hacker thinks he can leverage a vulnerability then the attempt
| will be made.
|
| Many of the vulnerabilities discovered over the past 5 years are
| buffer-overruns. Truth is that win-98 (or it's relavent IE module)
| will get tripped up when exposed to a given exploit. But usually it
| will only hang or crash the module - it won't execute as the hacker
| intended.

SO gees, if the hack worked for XP and didn't in 9X, just why is it that
you, in your infinite wisdom, think it didn't... oh tell me wise one ....

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________



  #6  
Old October 29th 07, 07:00 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Dan
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,089
Default Securing Windows 98(SE) in the Modern Age

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.
  #7  
Old October 29th 07, 08:45 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Brian A.
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 748
Default Securing Windows 98(SE) in the Modern Age

"Dan" wrote in message
...
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 }
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


  #8  
Old October 30th 07, 01:42 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Dan
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,089
Default Securing Windows 98(SE) in the Modern Age

Thank you, MEB. In addition, Windows 98 Second Edition has less services
than XP Professional thus it presents a smaller attack surface than all the
services that XP has compared to 98 Second Edition. Chris Quirke, MVP is
working on a maintenance operating system for Vista based on Ubantu Linux and
you must remember that 98 S.E. does have DOS for its maintenance operating
system. It would be great to have a trial of a clean install of Windows XP
Professional and a clean install of 98 Second Edition and see which a
hacker(cracker) could break into first. On another note, on page A16 art.com
apparently was hacked and the hacker or hackers broke through multiple layers
of security to break into the website so it just goes to show if you want
true safety and security that you use an old 486 IBM PC or such and store
your passwords there and not have it connected to the internet and just use a
password and even if a burglar breaks into your home they will most likely
ignore such an old PC anyway. I am becoming more convinced that Linux will
be the wave of the future, at least for the techies.
  #9  
Old October 30th 07, 01:51 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default Securing Windows 98(SE) in the Modern Age

"Brian A." wrote:

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.


Bull****.

Win-2K and XP were incredibly vulnerable to at least 5 network-based
worms that enabled those systems to be directly infected and
trojanized without their owners performing any act such as opening
e-mail or surfing the web.

Micro$oft is completely responsible for configuring XP (home and pro)
with certain settings and certain services turned on by default which
exposed those systems to the above-mentioned network vulnerabilities.
Micro$haft traded security for reduced end-user support load and in
doing so they exposed millions of idiots to infection who bought
XP-based home computers during 2002 and 2003. Macro$haft didn't even
have the wisdom to alter the default installation settings of XP-home
to more closely match the demands of the computing environments those
systems were likely used in.

The term "Internet Survival Time" is very well known (look it up on
Google). It was coined as a measure of how long an un-patched 2K or
XP system would last on the net before being hit by a worm. It became
a joke that you couldn't take a brand new install of 2k or XP and hang
it on the net and download patches without being infected before the
patches were installed.

You can take an original Win-98/se system and hang it on the net (with
default settings, no AV and no firewall, no NAT router) and it's not
vulnerable to anything.

Half the IE5 and IE6 vulnerabilities that affect 2K and XP don't even
apply to 98.

Macrosoft has time and time again posted advisories about
vulnerabilities where they list 98 as being affected in the advisory
summary, but don't list 98 in the details or FAQ section. That's
their way of making dupes like you, and the stupid tech press, believe
that XP wasn't a step backward when compared to 98.

When XP Pro is configured properly it is by far more secure
than 98.


In your dreams. The best XP can hope for is to be as EQUALLY secure
as 98. And that only came in the summer of 2004 with SP2 - almost 2
years after XP was introduced.

If you want to talk about desktop (login) security - that's another
matter completely. Most people here are not concerned about what
amounts to physical system accessibility, and that's not what this
thread is about.

IT and sys-admins hated and looked down on 9x for that reason. But
their notion of "security" is not what we're talking about here.
  #10  
Old October 30th 07, 02:12 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default Securing Windows 98(SE) in the Modern Age

MEB wrote:

I disagree. As XP is based upon the same base code as VISTA it
will always be attacked, and vigorously.


The hackers are not "attacking" OS's.

They are coding to take advantage of vulnerabilities in specific
modules when such vulnerabilities are discovered or announced.

9X on the other hand, will receive less and less attention.


Again, it's not the OS's that receive attention - it's the posted
vulnerabilities that get attention.

If a hacker thinks he can leverage a vulnerability then the attempt
will be made.

Many of the vulnerabilities discovered over the past 5 years are
buffer-overruns. Truth is that win-98 (or it's relavent IE module)
will get tripped up when exposed to a given exploit. But usually it
will only hang or crash the module - it won't execute as the hacker
intended.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Installing 98se on modern hardwa Asrock 775DUAL-VSTA motherboard 98 Guy General 5 February 12th 07 05:32 AM
Securing Windows98 Davy General 4 August 8th 05 01:14 AM
Modern computer case? ms General 7 April 8th 05 12:43 PM
Securing access to Computer/Windows General 2 September 24th 04 03:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.