if you haven't done it yet, update your xp now!

[Byock]

Would not suprise me.

[The PIT]

Originally posted by leech
With all this, I'm thinking it's a good thing that I'm going to get an nvidia card soon (if the bastards ever come out!) and then avoid using XP as much as I can...

Leech

Try 95 and office 95 they don't write virus for that anymore.

Don't worry if Linux was as big as MS they'd be virus for that. Why knock out ten when you can knock out a million.

[Wombat]

Originally posted by The PIT
Don't worry if Linux was as big as MS they'd be virus for that. Why knock out ten when you can knock out a million.

This is a bogus argument. If they were equally vulnerable, but it was just a marketshare issue, then why does IIS have so many more risks and exploits and viruses, when Apache has more of the market?

[leech]

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Considering they haven't bothered patching IE for any kind of spyware yet, makes me a bit suspicious. Almost as if they encourage it...

Leech

[High_Jumbllama]

Originally posted by Wombat
This is a bogus argument. If they were equally vulnerable, but it was just a marketshare issue, then why does IIS have so many more risks and exploits and viruses, when Apache has more of the market?

Good point. I would think it could be due to the large number of desktops that can view the pages with the types of coding that IIs tends to serve. At least it would be a factor. Fewer servers but far more susceptible dekstops that fall prey to these infected servers.

[Wombat]

But first you have to infect the server.

[High_Jumbllama]

Originally posted by leech
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Considering they haven't bothered patching IE for any kind of spyware yet, makes me a bit suspicious. Almost as if they encourage it...

Leech

Probably waiting for the release of XPSP2 for some kind of simultaneous release or at least that's the only reason I can think of.

[The PIT]

Wombat how many people are running apache on the desktop???

You're also missing the point that quite a few of these virus etc have been used for denial of service attacks. The more desktops you can get to do this the better.

Since MS is 99% of desktops on the world you ain't going to worry about the other few pecent or so would you.

Also most of the infected machines are now XP then 2000 and very few 9x machines.

If Linux was 99% of the market share people would have to write virus too exploit security holes.

[Marshmallowman]

Yes windows is a bigger target becasue it has a larger installed base.

Yes linux is more secure, as it has been designed to be a secures system from the ground up.

eg...graphics/GUI in windows is kernel mode(insecure but done for perfomance reasons) whereas linux graphics/gui is not and never will be for security and stabilty reasons.

Do not mix these arguments becasue they are both true.

[Paulr]

My Windows servers are every bit as secure as Linux servers.
You cannot claim that any one is any more secure than the other.

Give a person physical access to either a Linux or Windows server and say goodbye to security.
However as networked servers locked away in a server room - some public facing others not, I know for a fact my Windows boxes are just as secure as my Linux ones.

[Marshmallowman]

we were talking about desktop OS's.

Win server os's have directx disabled by default, to minimise risk.

PS what is the default (secure heh) web browser installed on windows sever OS's?

[leech]

Originally posted by The PIT
Wombat how many people are running apache on the desktop???

You're also missing the point that quite a few of these virus etc have been used for denial of service attacks. The more desktops you can get to do this the better.

Since MS is 99% of desktops on the world you ain't going to worry about the other few pecent or so would you.

Also most of the infected machines are now XP then 2000 and very few 9x machines.

If Linux was 99% of the market share people would have to write virus too exploit security holes.

By your logic, there would be a lot more attacks on Win9x users, since, at least last I checked, there are still a lot more users of the 9x variety of windows than there is of 2000 or XP. There were plenty of attacks in those days as well... I think really what it comes down to is not that as many people in the 9x days had DSL or even dial-up internet access . I'm sure if linux had 99% of the desktop... as you said.. BUT what if both windowsXP and Linux each had about 48% and Mac had the other 4%... which one would have more virii or exploits... that is the real question.

Leech

[Byock]

Originally posted by Marshmallowman
PS what is the default (secure heh) web browser installed on windows sever OS's?

On Server 2003 it is IE with Everything diasabled. Windows update is on the safe list, so that it will run. This does eliminate 99% of the holes in IE, of course you cannot browse many sites, but it is secure.

[William]

Why would you want to browse many sites from a server? For that matter why do MS install OE on server 2003? I've always wondered what the logic behind it was

[leech]

Don't you know? It's integrated into the OS... Billy said that there is no way they can tear it out...

Basically Windows Update requires it... how else will you get all those patches... Well, personally I think they could find a better method... but that's just me...

Leech