Why do so many corporations still use Windows 98? It's because a copy of Windows 98 costs $180. Compare that to NT 4 which ran about $349. And NT didn't even support IDE! Your IDE drives showed up as SCSI. And drivers had always been an issue with NT.
Worried about security with Windows 98? Use a domain controller and set a group policy. Add the "MustBeValidated" policy and users can't log in without a being validated by a Windows NT domain.
Sure Windows 98 wasn't all that stable, but it was alot cheaper than NT. And if a workstation crashed or become problematic because of Windows, you reimage it. All the data is saved on the server anyway (at least it should be).
As far as upgrading from Windows 98 as a whole, sure hardware has vastly increased. But does that mean you need to have 2 GHz systems? Let's face it, buying a new computer for just Internet use is overkill anymore. Super fast systems aren't needed for things like web browsing an email. Just because you can go faster, doesn't mean you have to. Windows 98 fits the bill. It supports "legacy" hardware and that might be all some people need.
Windows 98 was simple and served the average user's needs.
I've noticed that spammers are going to extreme lengths to by-pass spam filters. I see it in spam all the time. I use a program called Mailwasher to preview my mail before I download. It has columns for things like sender, date, etc. When something exceeds a column, it's expanded as a tool tip. Well, I accidently bumped my mouse and it went over a spam's subject line and the tool tip took up the entire length of the screen and had a heighth of 1/4 of an inch. I'd show the screen shot but my webhost's ftp access is down right now.
Needless to say, spam is getting crazier than ever. I remember Earthlink coming under fire last year for emails that weren't reaching their destination because of the spaminator.
I'd hate to say it, but legitimate mail has put email users at the mercy of spammers because there could be something important in the midst of all the junk.
If you turned of DCOM, she would've never been infected in the first place. DCOMCNFG ->Default Properties -> Disable Distributed COM Services on this computer.
It's not fix. Microsoft isn't addressing the issue. DCOM is entirely unncessary. There is no practical reason for anyone to run it. It just makes you more vulnerable.
DCOM's interface is the reason for worms like blaster and welchia. Shutting it off gives those worms nothing to bind to. I seriously think that OEM's should consider selling their PC's with DCOM turned off. Almost nobody uses it and it's a security risk. The same goes for Windows Messenger. It's an unnecessary service that should be turned off.
Make an image of an XP installation with DCOM disabled. It's the DCOM interface that makes NT/2000/XP/2003 systems vulnerable. Without DCOM enabled, worms like blaster and welchia have nothing to bind to. Start Menu -> Run -> dcomcnfg -> Default Properties Tab -> Disable Distributed COM Services On This Computer. No more DCOM exploits. No more blaster or welchia.
What do they mean "looking back" on 2003? The date is December 23, 2003. An accurate annual analysis would require waiting until at least January 1, 2004. Who's to say that there might not be another Windows security hole discovered between now and 2004?
2000/XPlite is a great program. It's based on the famouse 98lite which did what Bill said couldn't be done. It removed IE from Windows. Removing IE removes it from memory which makes your system alot safer. Intrusion Enhancer (IE) is a far cry from safe. Talk about integrated exploits.
Sounds like alot of people on here are just a tad bit hysterical. It's already been shown that the story was misreported by the mentioned source.
It's like the shootings at I-270 near Columbus. The newspaper said that a lady was shot and killed when a bullet penetrated the driver's door of the car she was riding in. If that's true, the driver was totally missed and she died. Obviously, they either meant that it hit the passenger door of the car she was riding in or it hit the driver door of the car she was driving.
So instead of seeing a sticker on Computers that says,"Designed for Microsoft Windows" are we going to see a sticker that says,"Designed for LA County?"
As if bloatware on the OS level weren't bad enough, Microsoft is extending it to the BIOS level. Sadly enough, Phoenix and Award are part of the same company. But that's okay. There's always AMI!
Embedded TCP/IP? That would give a whole new meaning to the phrase,"System compromise."
Could you imagine the reaction from Phoenix/Award and AMI? I could see them all saying,"Excuse me? You want us to what?" And don't forget about hard drive manuals and jumper pin settings on the drives. LA County council members need to get a reality check if they think they're going to use PC to alter a standard that's been around more than a decade. And I know Comptia isn't about to change the A+ Certification test over something as trivial as this.
What I don't understand is why people would use Windows 9x on something that needs to be reliable. I know that NT/2000/XP can have BSOD's too and NT/2000 would be best of those three. But under an NT environment, BSOD usually means hardware, filesystem or driver problems. Under a Win9x environment, it could be all kinds of things ranging from a BIOS setting, to viruses, memory management issues, limited GDI or even a flaky app. Over a long period of time, a Win9x system can go downhill fast.
I've seen Win9x BSOD's on blood pressure checking machines, kiosks and other places where reliability is important.
I know what you're saying. I was scrutinizing it as a solution rather than an option. I just hope that other companies don't follow suit. There seems to be a growing trend in all-in-one technology.
Power loss will also mean communication loss. If a business is using broadband instead of T1, they risk losing communication in the event of a power failure. Sure, they probably have a UPS but that's not going to keep their WAN links alive.
It's very scary to think of so many things being handled by one main line.
Obviously, I'm not a legal expert when I ask,"Does International Law play a part in this?" He's a US citizen that threatened a Canadian company. Shouldn't there be an international law for this kind of thing? Sure, the threat was made in California, but when it reached the routers, it was sent to Canada. So we have an American threat that crossed the Canadian border. Who's country's juristiction should it really be under? The sender or the receiver? But suppose he made the threat via an international or foreign mail account. Could and would California or even Federal laws apply? I wonder how laws handle the differences between physical and logical aspects in the IT world.
Zdnet is rather hypocrtical when it comes to Microsoft. They promote Microoft then complain about its domanance in the software industry. Then they bash Microsoft. i.e. Jesse Burst.
Yeah, it's very funny. Funny as in suspicious. Sounds to me like there's a conspiracy between Microsoft and SCO to shut down open source. Microsoft has already declared Linux its number one threat. The timing of the SCO trial was perfect for Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do so many corporations still use Windows 98? It's because a copy of Windows 98 costs $180. Compare that to NT 4 which ran about $349. And NT didn't even support IDE! Your IDE drives showed up as SCSI. And drivers had always been an issue with NT.
Worried about security with Windows 98? Use a domain controller and set a group policy. Add the "MustBeValidated" policy and users can't log in without a being validated by a Windows NT domain.
Sure Windows 98 wasn't all that stable, but it was alot cheaper than NT. And if a workstation crashed or become problematic because of Windows, you reimage it. All the data is saved on the server anyway (at least it should be).
As far as upgrading from Windows 98 as a whole, sure hardware has vastly increased. But does that mean you need to have 2 GHz systems? Let's face it, buying a new computer for just Internet use is overkill anymore. Super fast systems aren't needed for things like web browsing an email. Just because you can go faster, doesn't mean you have to. Windows 98 fits the bill. It supports "legacy" hardware and that might be all some people need.
Windows 98 was simple and served the average user's needs.
I've noticed that spammers are going to extreme lengths to by-pass spam filters. I see it in spam all the time. I use a program called Mailwasher to preview my mail before I download. It has columns for things like sender, date, etc. When something exceeds a column, it's expanded as a tool tip. Well, I accidently bumped my mouse and it went over a spam's subject line and the tool tip took up the entire length of the screen and had a heighth of 1/4 of an inch. I'd show the screen shot but my webhost's ftp access is down right now.
Needless to say, spam is getting crazier than ever. I remember Earthlink coming under fire last year for emails that weren't reaching their destination because of the spaminator.
I'd hate to say it, but legitimate mail has put email users at the mercy of spammers because there could be something important in the midst of all the junk.
No problem. It just frustrates me how Microsoft fails to address the problem by telling people to use firewalls and install patches.
If you turned of DCOM, she would've never been infected in the first place. DCOMCNFG ->Default Properties -> Disable Distributed COM Services on this computer.
You would be modded to -6 for flamebait, -6 for trolling and your IP would be banned for 48 hours
Qchain will automate the task of installing patches and can be used during installation.
It's not fix. Microsoft isn't addressing the issue. DCOM is entirely unncessary. There is no practical reason for anyone to run it. It just makes you more vulnerable.
DCOM's interface is the reason for worms like blaster and welchia. Shutting it off gives those worms nothing to bind to. I seriously think that OEM's should consider selling their PC's with DCOM turned off. Almost nobody uses it and it's a security risk. The same goes for Windows Messenger. It's an unnecessary service that should be turned off.
Computer based firewalls -- Layer 7 Hardware or Hardened Firewalls -- Layer 3
Make an image of an XP installation with DCOM disabled. It's the DCOM interface that makes NT/2000/XP/2003 systems vulnerable. Without DCOM enabled, worms like blaster and welchia have nothing to bind to. Start Menu -> Run -> dcomcnfg -> Default Properties Tab -> Disable Distributed COM Services On This Computer. No more DCOM exploits. No more blaster or welchia.
What do they mean "looking back" on 2003? The date is December 23, 2003. An accurate annual analysis would require waiting until at least January 1, 2004. Who's to say that there might not be another Windows security hole discovered between now and 2004?
SCO was hit with a DOO attack -- Denial Of Oxygen. As in the oxygen that isn't reaching their brains.
2000/XPlite is a great program. It's based on the famouse 98lite which did what Bill said couldn't be done. It removed IE from Windows. Removing IE removes it from memory which makes your system alot safer. Intrusion Enhancer (IE) is a far cry from safe. Talk about integrated exploits.
Sounds like alot of people on here are just a tad bit hysterical. It's already been shown that the story was misreported by the mentioned source.
It's like the shootings at I-270 near Columbus. The newspaper said that a lady was shot and killed when a bullet penetrated the driver's door of the car she was riding in. If that's true, the driver was totally missed and she died. Obviously, they either meant that it hit the passenger door of the car she was riding in or it hit the driver door of the car she was driving.
So instead of seeing a sticker on Computers that says,"Designed for Microsoft Windows" are we going to see a sticker that says,"Designed for LA County?"
As if bloatware on the OS level weren't bad enough, Microsoft is extending it to the BIOS level. Sadly enough, Phoenix and Award are part of the same company. But that's okay. There's always AMI! Embedded TCP/IP? That would give a whole new meaning to the phrase,"System compromise."
Could you imagine the reaction from Phoenix/Award and AMI? I could see them all saying,"Excuse me? You want us to what?" And don't forget about hard drive manuals and jumper pin settings on the drives. LA County council members need to get a reality check if they think they're going to use PC to alter a standard that's been around more than a decade. And I know Comptia isn't about to change the A+ Certification test over something as trivial as this.
What I don't understand is why people would use Windows 9x on something that needs to be reliable. I know that NT/2000/XP can have BSOD's too and NT/2000 would be best of those three. But under an NT environment, BSOD usually means hardware, filesystem or driver problems. Under a Win9x environment, it could be all kinds of things ranging from a BIOS setting, to viruses, memory management issues, limited GDI or even a flaky app. Over a long period of time, a Win9x system can go downhill fast.
I've seen Win9x BSOD's on blood pressure checking machines, kiosks and other places where reliability is important.
I know what you're saying. I was scrutinizing it as a solution rather than an option. I just hope that other companies don't follow suit. There seems to be a growing trend in all-in-one technology.
UPS = Uninteruptable Power Supply.
Power loss will also mean communication loss. If a business is using broadband instead of T1, they risk losing communication in the event of a power failure. Sure, they probably have a UPS but that's not going to keep their WAN links alive.
It's very scary to think of so many things being handled by one main line.
Why doesn't the guy try suing the company for emotional pain and suffering and negligence?
Obviously, I'm not a legal expert when I ask,"Does International Law play a part in this?" He's a US citizen that threatened a Canadian company. Shouldn't there be an international law for this kind of thing? Sure, the threat was made in California, but when it reached the routers, it was sent to Canada. So we have an American threat that crossed the Canadian border. Who's country's juristiction should it really be under? The sender or the receiver? But suppose he made the threat via an international or foreign mail account. Could and would California or even Federal laws apply? I wonder how laws handle the differences between physical and logical aspects in the IT world.
Zdnet is rather hypocrtical when it comes to Microsoft. They promote Microoft then complain about its domanance in the software industry. Then they bash Microsoft. i.e. Jesse Burst.
Yeah, it's very funny. Funny as in suspicious. Sounds to me like there's a conspiracy between Microsoft and SCO to shut down open source. Microsoft has already declared Linux its number one threat. The timing of the SCO trial was perfect for Microsoft.