re: INFECTIONS: The old wives' tale put to bed
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Windows 98 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by sekirt
(297 messages posted)
Quote: "I refuse to believe that someone who routinely runs as root
has NEVER been infected."
You'd lose.
Quote:"That's not exhibiting what I consider common sense and certainly not wisdom."
Maybe I know something you don't. That would make your
statement wrong.
Quote: "If none of the files were ever messed with subsequently,
>_then_ *n?x would list them in the order they were written."
Thanks. DOS default dir command was perfect. Win98 (FAT)
worked well also. Win3.1 was better, though, I can't remember
why right now.
sekirt
On Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 10:53 pm, gewg_ wrote:
>gewg_ wrote:
>||--though it's foolish and anyone with the slightest sense avoids it.
>||
>sekirt wrote:
>|Um...thanks for saying I don't have the slightest sense.
>|
>Hey, I'm a nerd, not a diplomat.
>...and you've been around M$ products enough to be aware of
>how many back doors and trap doors and gotchas there are
>yet you continue to spit into the wind.
>That's not exhibiting what I consider common sense and certainly not wisdom.
>
>|You forget...IF I never had any security problems with Win98
>|and no security problems with Vista,
>|then your comments are only boogeyman stories and nothing more.
>|
>I refuse to believe that someone who routinely runs as root
>has NEVER been infected.
>It may not have become the size problem that caused your ISP to cut you off,
>but at some point over the years, you got an infection of some kind
>--whether your band-aid layer pointed it out or not.
>
>|OT
>|Can you view a directory (unsorted)
>|in the order the files were put onto the hard drive?
>|So if I have 3 files, A B C and I copy them to a directory in this order C A B,
>|can I see them in that order?
>|
>Not necessarily. If none of the files were ever messed with subsequently,
>_then_ *n?x would list them in the order they were written.
>If altered in any way (e.g. permissions), the *n?x directory listing utility
>puts things in order of last change (of whatever type)
>--but doesn't bother with creation dates as data points otherwise.
>cache
>of http://www.computerhope.com/unix/uls.htm
>http://google.com/search?q=define:i-node
>
>A journaling filesystem will put each file wherever it finds a big enough empty
spot,
>so neither NTFS nor ext3 would necessarily put them in sequential order physically.
>Oddly enough, an OS using a FAT filesystem[1] would likely do what you want
>(e.g. using a DOS DIR without any -O parameter to sort them
>--which would list them by physical order)
>with the probability of success proportional to
>the time between the last defrag and the file's copying-over from another device
>--but again, not a sure thing.
>
>For my part, I wondered if it was possible to make backups of Windoze files
>and somehow not disturb the creation date of the files.
>I suspect it would require having to create my own OS/utility (or hack what exists).
>
>
>WRT the topic of relative security of the platforms, this is a fun data point:
>cache
>of http://www.goodbyemicrosoft.net/print.php?news.205
>
>
>[1] Linux supports FAT--along with dozens of other filesystems.
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | |  | re: INFECTIONS: The old wives' tale put to bed (sekirt: Wed, Nov 11, 2009, 11:20 pm) |
| |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum
|
|
