From: tony sayer on 22 Apr 2010 03:52 >I actually tried this once as a test. Installed the original Windows >2000 release, no firewall, no anti-virus, nor any updates back in 2002. >Although I had it networked to another computer and that one was setup >to scan the unprotected one. And that was very interesting. Two servers >slipped two viruses on the computer within 90 seconds and I didn't even >access any of those servers. Those bots finds unprotected computers >really fast. Pretty clever! But not clever enough to fool me. lol Was this -directly- connected to the net, or via a ADSL/Router NAT unit like a lot of people now use?.. -- Tony Sayer
From: BillW50 on 22 Apr 2010 06:43 In news:JeoRJdDKBA0LFwXm(a)bancom.co.uk, tony sayer typed on Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:52:42 +0100: >> I actually tried this once as a test. Installed the original Windows >> 2000 release, no firewall, no anti-virus, nor any updates back in >> 2002. Although I had it networked to another computer and that one >> was setup to scan the unprotected one. And that was very >> interesting. Two servers slipped two viruses on the computer within >> 90 seconds and I didn't even access any of those servers. Those bots >> finds unprotected computers really fast. Pretty clever! But not >> clever enough to fool me. lol > > Was this -directly- connected to the net, or via a ADSL/Router NAT > unit like a lot of people now use?.. Hi Tony! It was connected up by dial-up. If it had a router connected, that never would have happened (well a correctly setup router anyway). And the viruses were inert until the user rebooted the computer. Then the viruses would install themselves and infect the system. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2 (quit Windows updates back in May 2009)
From: dennis on 23 Apr 2010 03:01 "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM(a)neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:hqqkhf$qt3$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Not all cable modems and DSL routers have an internal router with NAT. > Many will still give a single connected computer a public IP address. That's true of cable modems and adsl modems but not of adsl routers unless its configured for a subnet which is not very often. Someone with a subnet would have the sense to turn on the firewall on XP before downloading and installing the updates. With the firewall turned on its not going to be infected before the updates are installed. Linux can be infected if you install a 5 year old unpatched version and leave it connected, it just takes longer.
From: BillW50 on 21 Apr 2010 19:03
In news:hqic3j$25a$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, Barry Watzman typed on Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:49:02 -0400: > The reality is that you WILL lose. You say so, but facts are facts. I know a few people personally who doesn't grab security updates for their computers. No downside for them for many years now. Most stopped because they had been burned when a security update messing something up. > If you update all the time, a few updates will bite you. Why take the chance? > If you don't use automatic update, you will miss an update whose > absence will bite you. That is what most experts will claim. But facts are facts and many actually don't use security updates and things are fine. I have never heard anybody on the Internet complaining that they forgot to get a security update and now they are infected. At least those with updated anti-virus software anyway. > The system is rigged; we [users] lose. Either way. > > But, overall, for most people, doing all "CRITICAL" updates (e.g. auto > update on ... which ONLY installs CRITICAL updates automatically) is > the better course. > > [In large part because for most real-world people, anything other than > "auto updates" becomes, in reality, almost no updates at all, almost > never.] First of all. Here is what works for me for security. 1) One really needs a stealth firewall. That keeps hackers on the Internet from knowing that your computer is even connected. The Windows XP one is one of these. 2) Use a good anti-virus program. Having a good one will block anything trying to make its way through any port, security hole in the OS, or from any other source your computer is connected too. Since you have the firewall and anti-virus watching your back, your OS could be littered with security holes and what would it matter? As they still can't get through to infect your system anyway. Plugging security holes is only important if you want to use your computer without any firewall and anti-virus checker. Now and only now it matters a lot. But that wouldn't be such a hot idea anyway now would it? I actually tried this once as a test. Installed the original Windows 2000 release, no firewall, no anti-virus, nor any updates back in 2002. Although I had it networked to another computer and that one was setup to scan the unprotected one. And that was very interesting. Two servers slipped two viruses on the computer within 90 seconds and I didn't even access any of those servers. Those bots finds unprotected computers really fast. Pretty clever! But not clever enough to fool me. lol Just think, there are tons of people running older unsupported Windows OS that hasn't seen a security update in many years. Yet these people are not getting infected with viruses now are they? There is a good reason why not. And I have been using this one as a test bench and I quit all updates since last May. Works just like it always have and I haven't had one single problem. And I quit updates on my other computers for a couple of months now and they too are fine. Remember too, there are always security holes in virtually any OS. And they seem to be never ending and you will never plug them all anyway. So you should never trust plugging any of them will really help anything. Because security updates only help on computers without real-time scanning anti-virus software. And even then viruses can still get through anyway. So what's the point? -- Bill Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2 (quit Windows updates back in May 2009) |