From: "Apd" <not@all.invalid>

"Virus Guy" wrote:
> Apd wrote:
>> "Shadow" wrote:
>>>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.

That's true, and those vulns will likely apply only to the monstrosity
that is Win 10. However, to deliver the exploits they're unlikely to
be using a 32 bit executable built with Visual Studio 6 or a script
that will even run on my system.

>> 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.

You have a point about the early NT systems having all manner of
unnecessary services running by default with ports open to the
internet. That's why I've configured my Win2k to have minimal services
running and further tweaked it to close any other listening ports that
I don't specifically require for the current network task. Network
access is also completely disabled when I'm not actively using it.


--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
 * Origin: News Gate @ Net396 -Huntsville, AL - USA (1:396/4)