Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: Is 98 more [secure] than nt-based OSes? Monday, December 25, 2006 at 5:30 pm Posted by gewg_ (3617 messages posted) :Is 98 more secure than NT-based OSes? : Aenov : Heh. No--not even close...and when it comes to security, NT-based OSes are nowhere close to Unix-like OSes (Solaris, *BSD, Linux, Mac OS X). System Policy Editor (POLEDIT) is available for DOS-based Windoze but it is a thin veneer. |how can I[...]secure dos-based Win98, so that it has no [volubility’s ??] present | No vulnerabilities?? You can't assure that with ANY OS. The best you can do is: (Locally): Establish permissions levels (POLEDIT, above). (Globally): Apply the OS patches and application patches available from the vendors (and from 3rd parties, if that is an option) and (in the case of Micros~1) paste on several layers of pseudo-security to try to cover for the inherent flaws which will never be designed out of Windows. What do you currently do to protect your fragile, hacked-together M$ OS? You're not still using Internet Exploder and Outbreaks in Excess are you? |and finally is it possible [any more] these days to get a flaw[...]in 98, |even if you are secure? | Heh. You are making the naive mistake of thinking that "secure" is an achievable absolute state. Security is a PROCESS--an ever-moving target. It would help if Micros~1 had designed its products with security in mind from the start, but alas, that was not the case then --and, since backwards-compatibilty is their #1 prioity, Windows security and M$Office security will always be a pasted-on thing. An OS (e.g. Unix), whose developers (from the start) gave proper consideration to security, will force you to install as a limited user AND for doing normal tasks you are encouraged to run as an ordinary user --NOT as a superuser who will have Admin privilidges. With the advances constantly being made with WINE, it is increasingly possible to run Windows-compatible executables from within a secure OS (e.g. Linux), cache of http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Switching_to_Linux +allow.a.MSWindows.application.to.run.on.Linux it won't be long until there will be no reason at all to pay the Microsoft Tax(tm). [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Is 98 more securer than nt-based OSes? Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 4:07 am Posted by dhm (966 messages posted) www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=voluble&gwp=13 Voluble = Given to conversation: chatty, conversational, garrulous, loquacious, talkative, talky. Not until Asimov type robots come along will computers be voluble. On Monday, December 25, 2006 at 3:32 pm, Aenov wrote: >how can I as one secure dos-based Win98, so that it has no volubility’s present >and finally is it possible anymore these days to get a flaw anymore in 98, even if >you are secure? [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Is 98 more [secure] than nt-based OSes? Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 5:54 am Posted by Aenov (1 messages posted) Oh, I am so shocked to find out that dos-based windows is the least secure, when I thought that people are creating virus execution codes compatible for the NT-based OSes in general (xp), but not the Windows dos-based OSes (95, 98, ME). I know about the dangers of IE, but if you upgrade to WinXP, MS will secure the browser as best as it can: http://news.com.com/Microsoft+To+secure+IE,+upgrade+to+XP/2100-1032_3-5378366.html Overall, I agree with Microsoft that compatibility is the number 1 priority (you can just download freeware security - -and Windows is the most commonly used OS) in the long-term, if you want to make your old data compatible with the newest version of MS Word for example (via from an older version of MS Word, like Word 97 to Word 2000). And, most businesses rely on Microsoft to make their old data and programs compatible with their new products and yet I have found that most major businesses still use Microsoft products regardless of the risks, like the likes of Internet Explorer. [Reply or follow-up to this message] The USER determines 'security' Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 7:05 am Posted by DNA (552 messages posted) The Win9x systems, in terms of Operating System design, have little to no security. It's mostly true that virus writers concentrate on NT (and XP specifically) today. In that sense, even Windows 2000 is more 'secure' than Windows XP. You can't say that an OS is more 'secure' just because viruses target a 'later' OS. There are still Win9x viruses floating around on the Internet. The real problem nowadays is malware, (adware, spyware, keyloggers, etc.), and the older that Internet Explorer is, the more susceptible it is to malware. The most 'secure' IE (if you even can call any version of IE 'secure'!) is IE7, which only runs on XP SP2 and Vista. Not to state that Firefox is 'perfect' or 'secure', but it's more secure than any version of IE. Especially in respect to how quickly security patches are released. Many known security flaws in IE6 and earlier remain unpatched. The 'number one security component' is the computer user, but you can say that a Windows 98 or 2000 computer browsing with Firefox is more 'secure' than an XP SP2/Vista computer browsing with IE7, and FAR more secure than any computer browsing with IE6! Businesses use IE because it's already installed on the operating system...period! Businesses may not install Firefox due to perceived additional I.T. expenses (deployment, 'retraining',etc.), but some smart businesses have switched because Firefox may end up saving them I.T. expenses in the long run (if their end users have to have Internet access). The lack of IE7 for Windows 2000 means that Firefox is a worthy 'security update' for the millions of Win2K systems still serving businesses. A valid reason why businesses weren't using Firefox is because Firefox 1.x didn't have Automatic Updates. Firefox 2.x has this facility. A good I.T. infrastructure will have the end users as Limited Users, and restrictions on network traffic. This will limit the damage that I.E. would otherwise inflict. Even you, the home user, can create a Limited User account (you'd need System Policy Editor to do this in Win9x) and use it for Internet surfing. This will give you more security, regardless of the browser used. Vista's User Account Control (UAC) makes Windows more like a Unix/Linux system, where even "Administrators" run as Limited users, and you have to elevate your privileges (ex: enter your password) to install programs. This is a genuine step forward for security in Windows, at least until someone cracks UAC (which I've heard has happened already!). We know M$ will be very busy patching UAC cracks.... Athlon 1.1 - 512 MB RAM = 98SE & XP Home Athlon 3000+ 64 - 1024 MB RAM = 98SE (@768 MB RAM) & XP Pro IBM ThinkPad PIII 900 - 384 MB RAM = 98SE & XP Pro SP2 Windows 2000 Server in the basement [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: The USER determines 'security' Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 8:47 am Posted by gewg_ (3617 messages posted) |Even you, the home user, can create a Limited User account |(you'd need System Policy Editor to do this in Win9x) | DNA | If the OP should take one something away from this thread, that's it. |Vista's User Account Control (UAC) |makes Windows more like a Unix/Linux system, | Hoo-Rah! |[...]This is a genuine step forward for security in Windows, |at least until someone cracks UAC | ...or until users become tired of the way it is so monumentally intrusive (popping up for the slightest little thing) 8-( and they just go back to running as Root. =8-0 [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Is 98 more [secure] than nt-based OSes? Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 8:56 am Posted by gewg_ (3617 messages posted) |[...]I thought that people are creating virus execution codes |compatible for the NT-based OSes in general (xp), |but not the Windows dos-based OSes (95, 98, ME). | Aenov | Someone interested in security shouldn't start from such assumptions. To ASSuME that viruses are the greatest thread may also be naive. (I see that DNA has pointed this out.) |I know about the dangers of IE, | Again: Meaning that you DON'T USE IT? |but if you upgrade to WinXP, MS will secure the browser as best as it can: | ROFLMAO. That is a total red herring--especially on *this* forum. NONE of the security deficiencies in IE noted in June 2004 have been patched. M$ calls them "features" instead of the invitations to exploits that they are. 1st & 2nd links here http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/1166728900 The 3rd link there is also applicable to this. |http://news.com.com/Microsoft+To+secure+IE,+upgrade+to+XP/2100-1032_3-5378366.html | What a crap page. No real content (long on promises, ZERO details), garbage HTML http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://news.com.com/Microsoft+To+secure+IE....html and even with the images and junk stripped out Validator--cache&strip=1 it's still HORRIBLE HTML. |Overall, I agree with Microsoft that compatibility is the number 1 priority |(you can just download freeware security | Again, you are mistaking paste-ons--which mask SOME flaws--for "security". Until defective components are REPLACED, the vulnerability still exists. I suggest the use of Firefox/Thunderbird (or the SeaMonkey suite) or the Opera suite. There are numerous replacements for IE/OE--ALL of them more secure by design. |and Windows is the most commonly used OS) in the long-term, | See WINE (below). |if you want to make your old data |compatible with the newest version of MS Word for example |(via from an older version of MS Word, like Word 97 to Word 2000). | Complete nonsense. You could not have chosen a WORSE example. This is exactly where M$ FAILS MISERABLY at backwards-compatibility. Many people install OpenOffice.org SPECIFICALLY because it does backwards-compatibility MUCH BETTER than M$Office --and at ZERO cost. There's even a portable version (think: USB thumbdrive): http://portableapps.com/apps/office/openoffice_portable |I have found that most major businesses still use Microsoft products |regardless of the risks | WINE is working to make M$ Windoze obsolete. The bottom line: As DNA has said, the weakest link in the security chain is the user. If others in your household have physical access to your box, using POLEDIT with W98 is useful. It sounds like *you* are aware that it's a jungle out there and THAT is the 1st step toward keeping a clean box. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: The USER determines 'security' Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 1:04 pm Posted by werner (7061 messages posted) IE7 is probably the WORST Internet Browser ever conceived,bar none.Check some of the Tales of Woe appearing on the XP-Forum about Internet Exploder7,sorry Internet Explorer 7. lol werner [Reply or follow-up to this message] IE7 tales of woe Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 10:38 pm Posted by DNA (552 messages posted) I haven't had any problems with IE7 on my XP's... Then again, I never see it except when I run Windows Update! I do think a number of people are having IE7 problems because they installed a beta version before the final version was released. Earlier this year, I was telling everyone at work "Do not install IE7 until it's the 'final' version!" Athlon 1.1 - 512 MB RAM = 98SE & XP Home Athlon 3000+ 64 - 1024 MB RAM = 98SE (@768 MB RAM) & XP Pro IBM ThinkPad PIII 900 - 384 MB RAM = 98SE & XP Pro SP2 Windows 2000 Server in the basement [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: IE7 tales of woe Wednesday, December 27, 2006 at 12:02 am Posted by werner (7061 messages posted) well,for the time being I still use IE6 when necessary and that is not much.Otherwise its Firefox.Probably don't go to IE7 unless there is no other choice. :) werner [Reply or follow-up to this message] Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread Search this forum Start a new thread on a different subject Report abuse of the forum Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum