Meaning of this site.

[pradip030384]

Meaning of this site.




--
pradip030384

 

[FromTheRafters]

What site are you referring to?

"pradip030384" <pradip030384.322dc78@news.win98banter.com> wrote in message
newsradip030384.322dc78@news.win98banter.com...
>
> Meaning of this site.
>
>
>
>
> --
> pradip030384

 

[FromTheRafters]

Oh, I see from your headers:

Organization: Win98banter.com

You should ask them, not us.

"pradip030384" <pradip030384.322dc78@news.win98banter.com> wrote in message
newsradip030384.322dc78@news.win98banter.com...
>
> Meaning of this site.
>
>
>
>
> --
> pradip030384

 

[Don Phillipson]

> "pradip030384" <pradip030384.322dc78@news.win98banter.com> wrote in
message
> newsradip030384.322dc78@news.win98banter.com...
>
> > Meaning of this site.

"FromTheRafters" <erratic@ne.rr.com> wrote in message
news:eS3tnlBIJHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Oh, I see from your headers:
>
> Organization: Win98banter.com
> You should ask them, not us.

The site calls itself "a web gateway to Microsoft . . . newsgroups"
-- apparently similar to the city public library's being a "gateway"
to (let's say) Knopf or Que books, apparently different in being
a source of spam.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

 

[FromTheRafters]

"Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:O0qkJ7CIJHA.3320@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> "pradip030384" <pradip030384.322dc78@news.win98banter.com> wrote in
> message
>> newsradip030384.322dc78@news.win98banter.com...
>>
>> > Meaning of this site.
>
> "FromTheRafters" <erratic@ne.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:eS3tnlBIJHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Oh, I see from your headers:
>>
>> Organization: Win98banter.com
>> You should ask them, not us.
>
> The site calls itself "a web gateway to Microsoft . . . newsgroups"
> -- apparently similar to the city public library's being a "gateway"
> to (let's say) Knopf or Que books, apparently different in being
> a source of spam.

Yeah, I was going to mention the spam angle too - it's bad
enough that anybody can post to NNTP servers now. You
used to at least have to know they existed - now you can
post not knowing there is a difference between newsgroups
and web forums.

Back to the OP - the preferred topic of a newsgroup is not
any relation to the website you use to interface with newsgroups
in general.

Information about the site would best be obtained from that
site, and the purpose of a newsgroup is sometimes in their
charter or in their FAQ - but I see nothing of the sort for the
Microsoft newsgroups.

This group is for general discussions concerning the Win98
operating system - as the name suggests. It does seem to be
overwhelmed with talk about monitors and timestamps at the
moment though.

 

[Dan]

Very true, From the Rafters about everything being about monitors and
timestamps currently. I guess the safety and security angle is being ignored
for the moment as well as other areas of Windows 98.

"FromTheRafters" wrote:

>
> "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
> news:O0qkJ7CIJHA.3320@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> "pradip030384" <pradip030384.322dc78@news.win98banter.com> wrote in
> > message
> >> newsradip030384.322dc78@news.win98banter.com...
> >>
> >> > Meaning of this site.
> >
> > "FromTheRafters" <erratic@ne.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:eS3tnlBIJHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >> Oh, I see from your headers:
> >>
> >> Organization: Win98banter.com
> >> You should ask them, not us.
> >
> > The site calls itself "a web gateway to Microsoft . . . newsgroups"
> > -- apparently similar to the city public library's being a "gateway"
> > to (let's say) Knopf or Que books, apparently different in being
> > a source of spam.
>
> Yeah, I was going to mention the spam angle too - it's bad
> enough that anybody can post to NNTP servers now. You
> used to at least have to know they existed - now you can
> post not knowing there is a difference between newsgroups
> and web forums.
>
> Back to the OP - the preferred topic of a newsgroup is not
> any relation to the website you use to interface with newsgroups
> in general.
>
> Information about the site would best be obtained from that
> site, and the purpose of a newsgroup is sometimes in their
> charter or in their FAQ - but I see nothing of the sort for the
> Microsoft newsgroups.
>
> This group is for general discussions concerning the Win98
> operating system - as the name suggests. It does seem to be
> overwhelmed with talk about monitors and timestamps at the
> moment though.
>
>
>

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:49:00 -0700, Dan
<Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Very true, From the Rafters about everything being about monitors and
>timestamps currently. I guess the safety and security angle is being ignored
>for the moment as well as other areas of Windows 98.
>
>"FromTheRafters" wrote:
>

I dont think 98 is all that much less secure.
Sure, the software may be easier to tamper with, but who really
targets 98 anymore? Virus creatiors are out to get the masses, and
most of the security holes in XP and Vista wont affect 95 98 or ME.

>>
>> "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
>> news:O0qkJ7CIJHA.3320@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> >> "pradip030384" <pradip030384.322dc78@news.win98banter.com> wrote in
>> > message
>> >> newsradip030384.322dc78@news.win98banter.com...
>> >>
>> >> > Meaning of this site.
>> >
>> > "FromTheRafters" <erratic@ne.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:eS3tnlBIJHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> >> Oh, I see from your headers:
>> >>
>> >> Organization: Win98banter.com
>> >> You should ask them, not us.
>> >
>> > The site calls itself "a web gateway to Microsoft . . . newsgroups"
>> > -- apparently similar to the city public library's being a "gateway"
>> > to (let's say) Knopf or Que books, apparently different in being
>> > a source of spam.
>>
>> Yeah, I was going to mention the spam angle too - it's bad
>> enough that anybody can post to NNTP servers now. You
>> used to at least have to know they existed - now you can
>> post not knowing there is a difference between newsgroups
>> and web forums.
>>
>> Back to the OP - the preferred topic of a newsgroup is not
>> any relation to the website you use to interface with newsgroups
>> in general.
>>
>> Information about the site would best be obtained from that
>> site, and the purpose of a newsgroup is sometimes in their
>> charter or in their FAQ - but I see nothing of the sort for the
>> Microsoft newsgroups.
>>
>> This group is for general discussions concerning the Win98
>> operating system - as the name suggests. It does seem to be
>> overwhelmed with talk about monitors and timestamps at the
>> moment though.
>>
>>
>>

 

[FromTheRafters]

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CFC696E9-91CC-4A5A-BE99-4E7C1722BBAB@microsoft.com...
> Very true, From the Rafters about everything being about monitors and
> timestamps currently. I guess the safety and security angle is being
> ignored
> for the moment as well as other areas of Windows 98.

Not implying that it is a bad thing, Win98 users need to
band together to share what they find works for the OS
and the somewhat older hardware they usually run it on.

 

[FromTheRafters]

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:1m1sd4pes09t7t1e893pfrbo33o307cq8e@4ax.com...

> I dont think 98 is all that much less secure.
> Sure, the software may be easier to tamper with, but who really
> targets 98 anymore? Virus creatiors are out to get the masses, and
> most of the security holes in XP and Vista wont affect 95 98 or ME.

Some of the security holes in other OSes are in security
layers that Win98 doesn't even have. It won't be listed
as an unpatched vulnerability because there is no way to
address the vulnerability short of adding a new layer of
security.

The security of a system isn't dependent upon how many
people decide to attack it, it is more an intrinsic thing. If
it presents a vulnerability to a would-be attacker then it
is a security issue even if the would-be attacker would
rather attack a more popular target.

 

[dlsayremn]

"FromTheRafters" wrote:

>
> Not implying that it is a bad thing, Win98 users need to
> band together to share what they find works for the OS
> and the somewhat older hardware they usually run it on.
>
>
The questions about best LCD monitors I can understand. I bought an X2gen
19" widescreen when I got my Vista computer. Supposed to be really good, 9
months later they are out of bussiness, 18 months later I am starting to have
problems with it and it looks like I am going to have to replace it. I I had
asked around first I probably wouldn't have bought it.

As far as security is concerned, except for a few die-hards, it seems from
what I have read here that most 98/98SE/ME users are running good firewall
and updatable AV programs. When some one is using buckshot not all the
pellts hit the target so if you are in the line of fire you want that shield
in front of you.

 

[Dan]

Please correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that Windows 98 Second
Edition has less surface area and less services so there is not as much to
attack especially if the user uses currently supported 3rd party programs
like Opera and/or Mozilla Firefox 2.x at least until the middle of December
2008. In addition, Sun Java 5 is going to be supported by Sun until the end
of October 2009, so 98 users still have options. I will be disappointed to
switch from Mozilla Firefox 2.x at the end of the year to another supported
browser for 98 Second Edition because I really do like Mozilla Firefox.

"FromTheRafters" wrote:

>
> <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:1m1sd4pes09t7t1e893pfrbo33o307cq8e@4ax.com...
>
> > I dont think 98 is all that much less secure.
> > Sure, the software may be easier to tamper with, but who really
> > targets 98 anymore? Virus creatiors are out to get the masses, and
> > most of the security holes in XP and Vista wont affect 95 98 or ME.
>
> Some of the security holes in other OSes are in security
> layers that Win98 doesn't even have. It won't be listed
> as an unpatched vulnerability because there is no way to
> address the vulnerability short of adding a new layer of
> security.
>
> The security of a system isn't dependent upon how many
> people decide to attack it, it is more an intrinsic thing. If
> it presents a vulnerability to a would-be attacker then it
> is a security issue even if the would-be attacker would
> rather attack a more popular target.
>
>
>

 

[FromTheRafters]

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:03FDB7CA-0EA6-465C-AC1E-6AF5025BB073@microsoft.com...
> Please correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that Windows 98 Second
> Edition has less surface area...

No, because that depends on software running on the OS and
not the OS itself. It is true that the more internet facing ingress
channels there are - the more the chances are that maliciously
crafted data can touch vulnerable software.

> ...and less services so there is not as much to attack...

I believe Win98 has the same number of ports as other Windows
OSes. Many Win98 enthusiasts have removed services listening on
ports when the services aren't needed. This is all just configuation
though.

I was talking about the OS itself, not just the out-of-the-box experience.
Win98 OOTB had insecure configuration - but so did others. Once you
tightened it as much as possible - what were you left with? That's what
counts.

Interpreting data from a list of patched and unpatched vulnerabilities,
as being a yardstick, is erroneous. As an analogy, suppose two guys
bought plasma TVs for their dormrooms. One guy in room 2000 has
a security door and a locked deadbolt. A burglar throws his shoulder
against the door and the deadbolt breaks off. The burglar runs off with
the plasma TV. The deadbolt company is made aware of a fault in the
hardware and it gets listed as an unpatched vulnerability until they fix it.
Another burglar goes to room 98 and finds no door, just two half hinges
with hingepins. He runs off with a palsma TV, but their was no broken
or faulty hardware involved - no entry (patched or unpatched) on your
list.

....but the difference in security should be obvious.

> especially if the user uses currently supported 3rd party programs
> like Opera and/or Mozilla Firefox 2.x at least until the middle of
> December
> 2008.

Outlook Express was just fine with me. If you know how to
configure your system you don't have to avoid OE as much
as many people would have you believe. It got battered so
often that most security types would avoid it just because the
alternatives were less often attacked. That and the general
feeling among many that Microsoft's coders needed some
clue regarding writing secure code.

IIRC Chris' main objection to O/OE was the inability to scan
attachments. He preferred to have the attachment detached,
decoded, and placed in the OS's native filesystem where it
could be scanned by AV/AM software.

 

[FromTheRafters]

"dlsayremn" <dlsayremn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0AD54318-C290-4526-8703-08027D8BAF46@microsoft.com...
>
>
> "FromTheRafters" wrote:
>
>>
>> Not implying that it is a bad thing, Win98 users need to
>> band together to share what they find works for the OS
>> and the somewhat older hardware they usually run it on.
>>
>>
> The questions about best LCD monitors I can understand. I bought an X2gen
> 19" widescreen when I got my Vista computer. Supposed to be really good, 9
> months later they are out of bussiness, 18 months later I am starting to
> have
> problems with it and it looks like I am going to have to replace it. I I
> had
> asked around first I probably wouldn't have bought it.
>
> As far as security is concerned, except for a few die-hards, it seems from
> what I have read here that most 98/98SE/ME users are running good firewall
> and updatable AV programs. When some one is using buckshot not all the
> pellts hit the target so if you are in the line of fire you want that
> shield
> in front of you.

As an analogy - newer firewalled OSes are like a person in a flak jacket,
and a firewalled Win98 is like a hemophiliac in a flak jacket. What does
get through can have dire consequences.

 

[Dan]

It still interests me that in XP Professional when connected with VPN to the
APS Intranet, the hackers broke in and remotely controlled XP Professional
with no problem and stole data. However, with Windows 98 Second Edition when
connected with VPN to the APS Intranet, the hackers did a Denial of Service
error and broke the VPN link but could not hack into the computer. Thus,
this incident helps me conclude that because of all the additional services
and points of access that Windows XP Professional has not been hardened as
well as Windows 98 Second Edition and shows the internal safety argument
compared to the external security argument that Chris Quirke, mvp has made
when comparing the 2 operating systems. I would find it interesting to see
if Windows Vista could be compromised in the same way or if it has been
hardened enough to prevent this type of access.

"FromTheRafters" wrote:

> "dlsayremn" <dlsayremn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0AD54318-C290-4526-8703-08027D8BAF46@microsoft.com...
> >
> >
> > "FromTheRafters" wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Not implying that it is a bad thing, Win98 users need to
> >> band together to share what they find works for the OS
> >> and the somewhat older hardware they usually run it on.
> >>
> >>
> > The questions about best LCD monitors I can understand. I bought an X2gen
> > 19" widescreen when I got my Vista computer. Supposed to be really good, 9
> > months later they are out of bussiness, 18 months later I am starting to
> > have
> > problems with it and it looks like I am going to have to replace it. I I
> > had
> > asked around first I probably wouldn't have bought it.
> >
> > As far as security is concerned, except for a few die-hards, it seems from
> > what I have read here that most 98/98SE/ME users are running good firewall
> > and updatable AV programs. When some one is using buckshot not all the
> > pellts hit the target so if you are in the line of fire you want that
> > shield
> > in front of you.
>
> As an analogy - newer firewalled OSes are like a person in a flak jacket,
> and a firewalled Win98 is like a hemophiliac in a flak jacket. What does
> get through can have dire consequences.
>
>
>