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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Should I reformat from Win2K to 98SE for security?
I have two old computers, one has 98SE, which I have the CD for, and
the other I bought has 2K Pro but with no disk. When I ran the Trend Micro online virus scan, it brought up all kinds of security issues with the 2K computer but not with the 98 one. Since there is no data saved on the 2K computer, would it be wise to "downgrade" to 98SE for security reasons? Or could I just use AdAware and Avast on the 2K computer and get the same amount of security (the 98 computer has AdAware and Avast on it, and I've never updated anything on it)? Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Should I reformat from Win2K to 98SE for security?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Should I reformat from Win2K to 98SE for security?
wrote in message oups.com... | I have two old computers, one has 98SE, which I have the CD for, and | the other I bought has 2K Pro but with no disk. When I ran the Trend | Micro online virus scan, it brought up all kinds of security issues | with the 2K computer but not with the 98 one. Since there is no data | saved on the 2K computer, would it be wise to "downgrade" to 98SE for | security reasons? Or could I just use AdAware and Avast on the 2K | computer and get the same amount of security (the 98 computer has | AdAware and Avast on it, and I've never updated anything on it)? | Thanks. | I think you'll find that users of both system have their own ideas on which OS is best. If you take 2K to its final updates many issues would likely disappear. As for security, ignore 98Guy, we have watched one after another of his ramblings in this discussion group concerning the necessity of only using a NAT. Be advised he also uses bit torrent so of course he wants as many computers unprotected so illegal files can be transferred. He lacks any real understanding of many aspects required. For a more reasonable review, many of the MVPs and other actual experts [the ones protecting Internet sites and commercial businesses] have numerous web pages available concerning settings and programs related thereto. It isn't difficult to locate the information. I have created a few for the general public which reference other's pages, sites, or blogs as well: http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/re...ts_install.htm http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/re.../antivirus.htm http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/re.../firewalls.htm http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/re...NETWORKING.htm http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/re...ty/spyware.htm -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real world" http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group for general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happen." Winston Churchill Or to put it another way: Morpheus can offer you the two pills; but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one. _______________ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Should I reformat from Win2K to 98SE for security?
MEB wrote:
As for security, ignore 98Guy, we have watched one after another of his ramblings in this discussion group concerning the necessity of only using a NAT. MEB - Why are you being a bone-head about this? Your obvious disdain of my utilization of software obtained via torrents and my non-EULA use of MSDN and other Micro$haft software is clouding your judgement and objectivity about the things I write about here. NAT routers provide 100% of the functional "protection" that a software firewall can ever hope to provide, and it's a myth that the outgoing monitoring that a software firewall does is either effective or needed. Software firewalls are vulnerable to deactivation by trojans or viruses. Be advised he also uses bit torrent so of course he wants as many computers unprotected so illegal files can be transferred. What - are you saying that some significant number of torrent seeders are running on trojanized systems? Is that your experience from your own torrenting? By the way, files themselves are not "illegal". There is no such thing as an "illegal file". As I've said, you need to use a NAT router, a hosts file, browser innoculation via Spybot SD and Spyware Blaster, and update your JAVA JRE (and un-install ALL old versions of JRE). A realtime registry monitor is probably equally effective as running AV software. Software firewall is extraneous and provides no system protection. Windows 98 is intrinsically less vulnerable to infection and intrusion vs the NT line (NT/2K/XP) but software compability with 98 in increasingly becoming a problem, not to mention hardware driver availability. With regard specifically to AV software, have a look on the .virus or ..anti-virus news groups or other web-resources pertaining to the AV scene. You will see that there are MANY that are now questioning the relavence of AV software given the nature of current viral threats and the increasingly poor performance of AV software at detecting modern malware (detecting them *before* they install themselves, change system settings, etc.) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Should I reformat from Win2K to 98SE for security?
"98 Guy" wrote in message ... | MEB wrote: | | As for security, ignore 98Guy, we have watched one after another | of his ramblings in this discussion group concerning the | necessity of only using a NAT. | | MEB - Why are you being a bone-head about this? Why are you being a moron. | | Your obvious disdain of my utilization of software obtained via | torrents and my non-EULA use of MSDN and other Micro$haft software is | clouding your judgement and objectivity about the things I write about | here. Glad you brought that up. I suggest EVERYONE do a Goole search for this 98Guy. It is very enlightening concerning this person's knowledge of computers, related, and the Internet | | NAT routers provide 100% of the functional "protection" that a | software firewall can ever hope to provide, and it's a myth that the | outgoing monitoring that a software firewall does is either effective | or needed. Software firewalls are vulnerable to deactivation by | trojans or viruses. No they do not [NAT]. They DO NOT monitor errant or hack software using network addressing and ports. A NAT can just as easily be hacked, particularly if one fails to remove the default keys. | | Be advised he also uses bit torrent so of course he wants as many | computers unprotected so illegal files can be transferred. | | What - are you saying that some significant number of torrent seeders | are running on trojanized systems? Is that your experience from your | own torrenting? | If one intends to make comments or provide advise related to issues one must research those aspects. On need not actively engage in the tranfers, but one can easily monitor and trace and track the transactions. Let me clue you in since you apparently don't get these aspects. Every few months the fed and state AGs produce their cases, round up a few hundred people engaged in the activity, and prosecute them. Those using this questionable activity point at the ones picked by the AGs, and try to claim they were somehow stupid, or did something that brought attention to them. Wrong. As I have attempted to advise you, EVERYONE on the Internet can be traced and tracked, it isn't that difficult, and IS the way the net is designed. | By the way, files themselves are not "illegal". There is no such | thing as an "illegal file". Creation of software with key generators, reverse engineered software, or other, is illegal as defined under US and International Laws related to Copyright, Trademark, Intellectual property, and other related Laws. NEVER attempt to discuss legal issue useless you actually know what your talking about. | | As I've said, you need to use a NAT router, a hosts file, browser | innoculation via Spybot SD and Spyware Blaster, and update your JAVA | JRE (and un-install ALL old versions of JRE). A realtime registry | monitor is probably equally effective as running AV software. | Software firewall is extraneous and provides no system protection. | Windows 98 is intrinsically less vulnerable to infection and intrusion | vs the NT line (NT/2K/XP) but software compability with 98 in | increasingly becoming a problem, not to mention hardware driver | availability. 9X is not less vulnerable. It has less hacks being created for it at the moment. Those creating the viri, trogans, and other, key on the security/coding with the NT environment, making them generally incompatible with the older DOS/32 coding. That does NOT mean 9X is less vulnerable without firewalls, anti-spyware progs, anti-virus progs, and other security protections. | | With regard specifically to AV software, have a look on the .virus or | .anti-virus news groups or other web-resources pertaining to the AV | scene. You will see that there are MANY that are now questioning the | relavence of AV software given the nature of current viral threats and | the increasingly poor performance of AV software at detecting modern | malware (detecting them *before* they install themselves, change | system settings, etc.) Right, as the hackers become more adept at their *profession*, so do the anti-[whatever] programs work to stop that activity. I do monitor some. We [the older people on the NET who HAVE worked in these areas] have seen this same attitude throughout the growth of the Internet... those with a brain and who use it, realize that the old protections are still relevant and needed. Seems its only the younger *whiz banger, I know everything* people spouting you don't need these things. But then these are the same people for the most part, that don't get global warming, thousands of years old religious misdirections, government corruption, and other aspects of the *REAL WORLD*. It's much easier to live in a dream world... So dude, every time you spout nonsense in this group, I WILL take you to task for it. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real world" http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group for general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happen." Winston Churchill Or to put it another way: Morpheus can offer you the two pills; but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one. _______________ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Should I reformat from Win2K to 98SE for security?
The virus world includes a large number that are spread via SPAM. In my
experience, users who are unwise about using email, like those who insist of viewing it in HTML, are VERY vulnerable to virus attack and only a decent AV will prevent the virus from running. This observation is based upon regular reports from such users who, no matter how much I insist on plain-text only, continue reading in HTML, or feel forced to in order to view most commercial emails properly. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User www.grystmill.com "98 Guy" wrote in message ... MEB wrote: As for security, ignore 98Guy, we have watched one after another of his ramblings in this discussion group concerning the necessity of only using a NAT. MEB - Why are you being a bone-head about this? Your obvious disdain of my utilization of software obtained via torrents and my non-EULA use of MSDN and other Micro$haft software is clouding your judgement and objectivity about the things I write about here. NAT routers provide 100% of the functional "protection" that a software firewall can ever hope to provide, and it's a myth that the outgoing monitoring that a software firewall does is either effective or needed. Software firewalls are vulnerable to deactivation by trojans or viruses. Be advised he also uses bit torrent so of course he wants as many computers unprotected so illegal files can be transferred. What - are you saying that some significant number of torrent seeders are running on trojanized systems? Is that your experience from your own torrenting? By the way, files themselves are not "illegal". There is no such thing as an "illegal file". As I've said, you need to use a NAT router, a hosts file, browser innoculation via Spybot SD and Spyware Blaster, and update your JAVA JRE (and un-install ALL old versions of JRE). A realtime registry monitor is probably equally effective as running AV software. Software firewall is extraneous and provides no system protection. Windows 98 is intrinsically less vulnerable to infection and intrusion vs the NT line (NT/2K/XP) but software compability with 98 in increasingly becoming a problem, not to mention hardware driver availability. With regard specifically to AV software, have a look on the .virus or .anti-virus news groups or other web-resources pertaining to the AV scene. You will see that there are MANY that are now questioning the relavence of AV software given the nature of current viral threats and the increasingly poor performance of AV software at detecting modern malware (detecting them *before* they install themselves, change system settings, etc.) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Should I reformat from Win2K to 98SE for security?
"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:
The virus world includes a large number that are spread via SPAM. According to this document: http://tinyurl.com/yw4sed (Messagelabs intelligence report, April 2007) The occurrance of malware in spam is 1 out of every 145 spams. (malware in this context is a catch-all term denoting viruses and possibly trojans). The rate of 1:145 is low, but even more significantly is that 84% of those are targeting various MS Office vulnerabilities - Powerpoint and Word. Vulnerabilities for which there are patches for. MessageLabs is showing a graph of the occurrance rate of malware in spam, and it's pretty clear that it is in decline. For most of 2005 it was on the order of 1 out of every 40 spams, and during 2006 it declined from 1:40 to the 1:145 being quoted last month. In my experience, users who are unwise about using email, like those who insist of viewing it in HTML, are VERY vulnerable to virus attack and only a decent AV will prevent the virus from running. While I don't doubt that there is spam containing URL's that point directly to threat-containing pages (requiring the user to click on the link to seek out and launch the malware), I don't buy your argument that malware in the form of HTML-based vulnerabilities are (today) arriving in the body of spam e-mail. This observation is based upon regular reports from such users who, no matter how much I insist on plain-text only, continue reading in HTML, or feel forced to in order to view most commercial emails properly. Could you describe a recent example of an HTML-based piece of malware that arrived in the message body of a user's e-mail? For example, how was it identified by the AV-software in question? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Should I reformat from Win2K to 98SE for security?
Your analysis based upon statistics, particularly recent ones, is lacking.
You postulate a number of things that are not givens in the vast majority of systems -- that they have well-patched systems, including MS applications, and that any number of other measures have been taken, many of which are not even known to users, much less followed. In fact, I find your implication that simply having Windows and applications properly patched means that they are secure rather amusing. Not having bothered to investigate thoroughly -- I don't read in HTML and haven't for years -- and admitting that my experiences are not mostly recent in nature, I've had reports from users that whereas their AV did not immediately flag viruses that were merely attachments, occasionally the AV was triggered by simply opening the email in HTML. The possibility still exists, and I would suggest that it is precisely the measures taken to close those vulnerabilities in Windows, to the extent possible, that have resulted in the statistics you cite, for much the same reason that Macs claim better security from viruses. They're attacked less because the returns have diminished -- diminished, but not eliminated. Granted, for a relatively small number of knowledgeable and diligent users, other measures can provide a sufficient level of protection to approximate that provided by AVs. But Joe Average, especially when sharing the machine with Joe Jr., needs that basic idiot-proofing just like he needs a lot of other idiot-proofing. Suggesting that they spend a LOT of time finding out how to get along without AV is a fools errand, even if we grant that they're capable of wading through the muck to make sure they have all the bases covered and haven't been taken in by one or more of the multitude of contra-helpful "tech" sites. One last word on your statistics. I have accounts that receive a few thousand SPAM per week, each. I'd be very worried for an average user without AV protection who got that kind of traffic. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User www.grystmill.com "98 Guy" wrote in message ... "Gary S. Terhune" wrote: The virus world includes a large number that are spread via SPAM. According to this document: http://tinyurl.com/yw4sed (Messagelabs intelligence report, April 2007) The occurrance of malware in spam is 1 out of every 145 spams. (malware in this context is a catch-all term denoting viruses and possibly trojans). The rate of 1:145 is low, but even more significantly is that 84% of those are targeting various MS Office vulnerabilities - Powerpoint and Word. Vulnerabilities for which there are patches for. MessageLabs is showing a graph of the occurrance rate of malware in spam, and it's pretty clear that it is in decline. For most of 2005 it was on the order of 1 out of every 40 spams, and during 2006 it declined from 1:40 to the 1:145 being quoted last month. In my experience, users who are unwise about using email, like those who insist of viewing it in HTML, are VERY vulnerable to virus attack and only a decent AV will prevent the virus from running. While I don't doubt that there is spam containing URL's that point directly to threat-containing pages (requiring the user to click on the link to seek out and launch the malware), I don't buy your argument that malware in the form of HTML-based vulnerabilities are (today) arriving in the body of spam e-mail. This observation is based upon regular reports from such users who, no matter how much I insist on plain-text only, continue reading in HTML, or feel forced to in order to view most commercial emails properly. Could you describe a recent example of an HTML-based piece of malware that arrived in the message body of a user's e-mail? For example, how was it identified by the AV-software in question? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Should I reformat from Win2K to 98SE for security?
"Gary S. Terhune" none wrote in message ... | Your analysis based upon statistics, particularly recent ones, is lacking. | You postulate a number of things that are not givens in the vast majority of | systems -- that they have well-patched systems, including MS applications, | and that any number of other measures have been taken, many of which are not | even known to users, much less followed. In fact, I find your implication | that simply having Windows and applications properly patched means that they | are secure rather amusing. | | Not having bothered to investigate thoroughly -- I don't read in HTML and | haven't for years -- and admitting that my experiences are not mostly recent | in nature, I've had reports from users that whereas their AV did not | immediately flag viruses that were merely attachments, occasionally the AV | was triggered by simply opening the email in HTML. The possibility still | exists, and I would suggest that it is precisely the measures taken to close | those vulnerabilities in Windows, to the extent possible, that have resulted | in the statistics you cite, for much the same reason that Macs claim better | security from viruses. They're attacked less because the returns have | diminished -- diminished, but not eliminated. | | Granted, for a relatively small number of knowledgeable and diligent users, | other measures can provide a sufficient level of protection to approximate | that provided by AVs. But Joe Average, especially when sharing the machine | with Joe Jr., needs that basic idiot-proofing just like he needs a lot of | other idiot-proofing. Suggesting that they spend a LOT of time finding out | how to get along without AV is a fools errand, even if we grant that they're | capable of wading through the muck to make sure they have all the bases | covered and haven't been taken in by one or more of the multitude of | contra-helpful "tech" sites. | | One last word on your statistics. I have accounts that receive a few | thousand SPAM per week, each. I'd be very worried for an average user | without AV protection who got that kind of traffic. | | -- | Gary S. Terhune | MS-MVP Shell/User | www.grystmill.com | | | "98 Guy" wrote in message ... | "Gary S. Terhune" wrote: | | The virus world includes a large number that are spread via SPAM. | | According to this document: | | http://tinyurl.com/yw4sed | | (Messagelabs intelligence report, April 2007) | | The occurrance of malware in spam is 1 out of every 145 spams. | | (malware in this context is a catch-all term denoting viruses and | possibly trojans). | | The rate of 1:145 is low, but even more significantly is that 84% of | those are targeting various MS Office vulnerabilities - Powerpoint and | Word. Vulnerabilities for which there are patches for. | | MessageLabs is showing a graph of the occurrance rate of malware in | spam, and it's pretty clear that it is in decline. For most of 2005 | it was on the order of 1 out of every 40 spams, and during 2006 it | declined from 1:40 to the 1:145 being quoted last month. | | In my experience, users who are unwise about using email, like | those who insist of viewing it in HTML, are VERY vulnerable | to virus attack and only a decent AV will prevent the virus | from running. | | While I don't doubt that there is spam containing URL's that point | directly to threat-containing pages (requiring the user to click on | the link to seek out and launch the malware), I don't buy your | argument that malware in the form of HTML-based vulnerabilities are | (today) arriving in the body of spam e-mail. | | This observation is based upon regular reports from such | users who, no matter how much I insist on plain-text only, | continue reading in HTML, or feel forced to in order to | view most commercial emails properly. | | Could you describe a recent example of an HTML-based piece of malware | that arrived in the message body of a user's e-mail? For example, how | was it identified by the AV-software in question? | | Gary is correct in his presentation as far as it goes. Hotmail BACKDOOR - an old discussion on Hotmail/Microsoft issues Did MS Dig Its Hotmail Hole? http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,21495,00.html Security pros work to undo teacher's conviction Robert Lemos, SecurityFocus 2007-02-02 http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11440 It was in the news, now read what's being done, and what the implications are. Security Focus - Vulnerabilities - listings of vulnerabilities - server side, application, OS http://www.securityfocus.com/vulnerabilities Security Focus - Infocus: Firewalls http://www.securityfocus.com/firewalls Security FocusInfocus: Microsoft http://www.securityfocus.com/microsoft Security Focus - Security Basics http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/105 http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/s...onse/index.jsp http://www.grisoft.com/doc/61/us/crp/0 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current.aspx http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/ http://www.adobe.com/support/security/ http://www.skype.com/security/bulletins.html http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/ http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/ http://www.f-prot.com/news/index.html http://httpd.apache.org/security_report.html http://www.watchguard.com/ http://seclists.org/ which has several other services/forums/lists/etc linked Of course there are literally thousands of sites, forums, and other.. as I have stated before, all users should attempt to keep somewhat informed and make every effort to secure their own system(s). Believing that because your one of billions on the NET and that makes you secure is not feasible anymore [if it ever was]. Server side codes, web apps, Flash, and other activities have opened ever deeper holes into your systems. And it isn't just your home computer, its your Windows based PDA, or other device... anything that you may have private information on, and which connects to something else... cell phones included ... For the 9X/ME/unsupported Microsoft user, they had best think and play carefully on the net. Anti-spyware and anti virus programs in conjunction with firewalls, and routers if possible, MUST be on everyone's systems. But even these are not absolute protection. It is the user who needs to work to secure their own systems beyond these protections. It is the user who needs to think carefully about what they do on the Internet, and allow into their systems. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real world" http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group for general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happen." Winston Churchill Or to put it another way: Morpheus can offer you the two pills; but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one. _______________ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
win2k & win98se | n6trf | General | 1 | September 23rd 05 09:19 PM |
Is Win2K/98 sensitive to DSR? | Vince via WindowsKB.com | Internet | 0 | August 5th 05 10:06 AM |
Security Alert network error message: "your current security settings prohibit | Tim | General | 0 | August 13th 04 08:38 PM |
Win98SE upgrade - Win2k or XP??? | mikeinil | General | 0 | August 12th 04 09:09 PM |
Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-018 - Cumulative Security Update for Outlook Express (823353) | PA Bear | General | 5 | July 15th 04 05:49 AM |