From: Shadow <Sh@dow.br>

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 11:19:32 -0400, Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.C0M> wrote:

>Apd wrote:
>
>> "Shadow" wrote:
>> > Amazing, Virus guy still uses Win98. I hadn't noticed.
> > > Either that or he munges his headers.
>
>Yes, I still primarily use win-98 on two systems, one of which (the one 
>I'm posting this from) has 2 gb of ram and several 1TB sata hard drives.

	I seem to remember that win 98 could only address up to 64MB
of RAM. That was one of the reasons I switched to XP in 2006 or so.
>
>>>He's probably safer than if he used Win 10 though, so maybe he
>>>has a point.
>> 
>> Indeed. Malware writers are lazy an will likely be using whatever
>> development frameworks are currently available. 
>
>No, I think its more true that malware writers and botnet operators will 
>  jump on the most recent vulnerability discoveries and leverage them 
>before updates and patches are installed.
>
>> It's unlikely they'll be deliberately targeting systems below XP.
>> BTW, I'm posting this from Windows 2000, the best version MS ever
>> made!
>
>Windows 2k and XP were the most vulnerable NT-based operating systems to 
>ever be put into use.  It's more accurate to say that they functioned 
>primarily more as trojan-hosting systems than end-user productivity 
>tools.  At least for XP, given that Win-2k use was far more limited than XP.
>
>I posted the following in April 2014.  The take-home message being this:
>
>Win-9x/me was, either by design or "dumb luck", a far less vulnerable OS
>in terms of it being made to reliably be tripped up by exploit code
>(heap spray, buffer-over-run exploits) than the NT line.  9x/me was
>never vulnerable to network worms the way NT was - because of all the
>open ports and services that OS's like 2K and XP turn on by default.  In
>fact, the default setting for file and print sharing is enabled for XP,
>but is disabled for 9x/me.
>
>The truth is that Win-9x/me has alway been harder to break into from a
>remote access point vs the NT line (2k/XP etc).  The term "internet
>survival time" was coined as a way to measure how long it would take for
>fresh install of win-2k or XP-SP0/1 to be hacked by a worm when the
>computer was directly connected to the internet for the first time (with
>no firewall or nat-router).
>
>Typically, back in 2001 to 2004 your win-2k or XP system with a fresh
>install would be hacked in 10 to 20 minutes - with no user intervention
>or action required!  In fact, unless you were behind a nat-router (which
>was a new concept for residential DSL connections back 10+ years ago)
>you had a hard time performing your first on-line update before your
>system was hit by a network worm.
>
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Posted to various XP newsgroups in April 2014:
>
>
>When MS stopped supporting Win-98 in July 2006, there was a grand total
>of 33 security issues that had been identified during it's 7-year
>lifespan:
>
>=======================
>Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition:
>
>http://secunia.com/advisories/product/13/?tas...
>
>Affected By:
>33 Secunia advisories
>22 Vulnerabilities
>
>Unpatched:
>9% (3 of 33 Secunia advisories)
>
>Most Critical Unpatched:
>
>The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows
>98 Second Edition, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less
>critical.
>=======================
>
>Now compare that to the most current (and probably very close to the
>final tally):
>
>Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows XP Professional:
>
>========================
>http://secunia.com/advisories/product/22/?tas...
>
>Affected By:
>446 Secunia advisories
>668 Vulnerabilities
>
>Unpatched:
>10% (44 of 446 Secunia advisories)
>
>Most Critical Unpatched:  The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory
>affecting Microsoft Windows XP Professional, with all vendor patches
>applied, is rated Highly critical.
>========================
>
>Over the past year, the number of "Secunia" advisories for XP has been
>increasing at the rate of about 2.5 per month, and the number of
>vulnerabilities has been increasing at the rate of 7 per month.  In Dec
>2012 there was 44 unpatched vulnerabilities.  That number hasn't changed
>in 15 months.
>
>The truth is that Win-9x/me has alway been harder to break into from a
>remote access point vs the NT line (2k/XP etc).  The term "internet
>survival time" was coined as a way to measure how long it would take for
>fresh install of win-2k or XP-SP0/1 to be hacked by a worm when the
>computer was directly connected to the internet for the first time (with
>no firewall or nat-router).
>
>Typically, back in 2001 to 2004 your win-2k or XP system with a fresh
>install would be hacked in 10 to 20 minutes - with no user intervention
>or action required!  In fact, unless you were behind a nat-router (which
>was a new concept for residential DSL connections back 10+ years ago)
>you had a hard time performing your first on-line update before your
>system was hit by a network worm.
>
>Win-9x/me was, either by design or "dumb luck", a far less vulnerable OS
>in terms of it being made to reliably be tripped up by exploit code
>(heap spray, buffer-over-run exploits) than the NT line.  9x/me was
>never vulnerable to network worms the way NT was - because of all the
>open ports and services that OS's like 2K and XP turn on by default.  In
>fact, the default setting for file and print sharing is enabled for XP,
>but is disabled for 9x/me.
>
>The "security" concept that is frequently mentioned with 9x vs NT is the
>idea of being able to control what the local user can do with the
>system, and it is true that the local user sitting at the 9x/me keyboard
>has access to the entire system (all files, registry, etc).
>
>But in terms of internet security and exposing a system to remote
>exploit code, the NT line fell far short of being as invulnerable to
>such exploit paths as 9x/me was, and the Secunia numbers posted above
>are perfect examples of that.

	Nevertheless, I'm still going to use XP. Have not used a
resident AV for more or less 5 years now.
	A very large number of softwares no longer work on 98. And Win
8 - 10  (and to a lesser extent Win 7) are just dumb terminals now.
	[]'s

	PS Anything won't work on XP, I use Devuan 2.0. Except for
Firefox, which is a security nightmare, it's pretty "safe". No
systemDisease.
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
 * Origin: News Gate @ Net396 -Huntsville, AL - USA (1:396/4)