Security reason for Win 98?

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

i noticed that a lot of peolple here use win 98. My understanding is
that MS no lmnger supports this OS

Is there a security reason for its use?

TIA
--G
15 answers Last reply
More about security reason
  1. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    * Hello <george1234pds@excite.com>:
    >
    > i noticed that a lot of peolple here use win 98. My understanding is
    > that MS no lmnger supports this OS
    >
    > Is there a security reason for its use?
    >
    > TIA
    > --G
    >
    >

    More likely a financial reason for it's use. Not everyone can afford the
    slightly over priced latest versions from ms, and linux and unix aren't
    for everyone.


    Jason
  2. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    "Jason" <Jason@not.real.address.org> wrote in message
    news:rP8qc.41656$Np3.1764630@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
    | * Hello <george1234pds@excite.com>:
    | >
    | > i noticed that a lot of peolple here use win 98. My understanding is
    | > that MS no lmnger supports this OS
    | >
    | > Is there a security reason for its use?
    | >
    | > TIA
    | > --G
    | >
    | >
    |
    | More likely a financial reason for it's use. Not everyone can afford the
    | slightly over priced latest versions from ms, and linux and unix aren't
    | for everyone.
    |
    |
    | Jason

    Also has you noticed how many of the latest virus's and work are not
    'supported' by Win 98 and below.
    --
    Chris Lewis
  3. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    In article <40a9b9f2_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net>, "Chris Lewis" <no spam
    thanks> says...
    > Also has you noticed how many of the latest virus's and work are not
    > 'supported' by Win 98 and below.

    This is due to how little 98 supports. The OS is soooo old that there is
    little reason to target it any more.

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  4. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Taking a moment's reflection, Hello mused:
    |
    | i noticed that a lot of peolple here use win 98. My understanding is
    | that MS no lmnger supports this OS

    A lot of people the World over still use 98. That's why Microsoft
    extended their support of the product. Right now, it is still officially
    supported by MS.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Leythos wrote:

    > In article <40a9b9f2_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net>, "Chris Lewis" <no spam
    > thanks> says...
    >> Also has you noticed how many of the latest virus's and work are not
    >> 'supported' by Win 98 and below.
    >
    > This is due to how little 98 supports. The OS is soooo old that there is
    > little reason to target it any more.

    Or maybe it is more difficult to target due to it having a lot less services
    running by default than WinXP?
  6. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    In article <5uuha0lrml855j04gsraerdvtbhgfcip8p@4ax.com>, george1234pds@excite.com says...
    >
    > i noticed that a lot of peolple here use win 98. My understanding is
    > that MS no lmnger supports this OS
    >
    > Is there a security reason for its use?
    >
    > TIA
    > --G
    >
    I still run Win 98 because it allows me to select, d/l, install,
    and run applications/utilities of my choice. (no MS stuff)
    Also, it allows me to manage my files. These are my simple
    requirements of an O/S. From what I have read, it is much easier
    to "firewall" a Win98--no needless (my opinion) services to
    control.
    Casey
  7. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Casey wrote:

    > george1234pds wrote:

    > > i noticed that a lot of peolple here use win 98. My understanding is
    > > that MS no lmnger supports this OS

    > > Is there a security reason for its use?

    > I still run Win 98 because it allows me to select, d/l, install,
    > and run applications/utilities of my choice. (no MS stuff)
    > Also, it allows me to manage my files. These are my simple
    > requirements of an O/S. From what I have read, it is much easier
    > to "firewall" a Win98--no needless (my opinion) services to
    > control.

    This is an interesting thread.

    We run three Windows 98 machines here, along with
    one Windows 2000 machine and one Linux machine.

    Our webserver, email server, dns server and related
    programming for our family webserver, all are run
    on our Windows 98 machines. All machines are located
    right here at home, which is nice.

    My experience is, and this is not a prompt for a
    typical operating system war, my experience is
    Windows 98 is an excellent operating system.

    There are a number of reasons why I feel Win98
    is a great system.

    Foremost reason is Win98 can be installed in a "lite"
    version, via a DOS batch file, which allows a very
    small system footprint. A lite version does not include
    all the "accessories" normally installed and never
    used; a waste of resources.

    Win98 uses very little RAM compared to NT5 types,
    which includes Win2K and XP. CPU processing is
    lightening fast with a lite installation.

    Another great feature is security is extremely
    high with Windows 98, despite Microsoft's bad
    record for security. Win98 does need to have
    all patches installed and does need to be
    correctly configured for security. Recently
    we had a "professional" security survey of
    our Win98 webserver (three machines) which
    included close to four-thousand known hacks.
    With 10 being the worst for security, our
    system scored 1 which is the lowest and
    the best rating possible. Not a single
    professional level hack was successful.

    Don't be misguided by this. There are still
    some vulnerabilities with Win98 but they are
    very obscure and little known. Additionally,
    we run a router and firewall which adds
    significantly to our security rating.

    Win98, in the Microsoft family, is fast,
    efficient and tons of programs are to be
    found for Win98, with most being free now.

    However, Win98 is not quite as stable as
    the NT5 group. Nonetheless, over the past
    five or six years, I can count on one hand
    how many Blue Screen Of Death incidents
    we experienced. Most crashes are contributed
    to user mistakes or bad software.

    As a webserver, as an email server and as
    a DNS server, I have found Win98 runs at
    least twenty percent more efficiently and
    more quickly than does NT5 types.

    Compared to Linux, performance is about
    the same; no real differences. Linux,
    though, is not as stable as Win98 nor
    offers as much software and hardware
    support and compatibility.

    All operating systems have good points
    and bad points. No operating system is
    truly superior to another.

    Win98, I would not use any other system
    on a daily basis. I have been exceptionally
    pleased with Win98 and will state Win98
    is far from antiquated.


    Purl Gurl
  8. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    In article <Acrqc.13720$zO3.10140@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
    reply@the.group says...
    > Leythos wrote:
    >
    > > In article <40a9b9f2_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net>, "Chris Lewis" <no spam
    > > thanks> says...
    > >> Also has you noticed how many of the latest virus's and work are not
    > >> 'supported' by Win 98 and below.
    > >
    > > This is due to how little 98 supports. The OS is soooo old that there is
    > > little reason to target it any more.
    >
    > Or maybe it is more difficult to target due to it having a lot less services
    > running by default than WinXP?

    That's what I just said - in different words.

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  9. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Purl Gurl wrote:

    >However, Win98 is not quite as stable as
    >the NT5 group. Nonetheless, over the past
    >five or six years, I can count on one hand
    >how many Blue Screen Of Death incidents
    >we experienced. Most crashes are contributed
    >to user mistakes or bad software.
    >
    >Compared to Linux, performance is about
    >the same; no real differences. Linux,
    >though, is not as stable as Win98 nor
    >offers as much software and hardware
    >support and compatibility.

    Up to the last quoted paragraph, I was mostly in agreement. However,
    claiming Win98 is more stable than Linux is either ignorance or
    stupidity. I'll buy the "lite" version of 98 is relatively stable,
    but to compare it to Linux? Who are you trying to kid?

    You claim 98 isn't quite as stable as 2K/XP, but is more stable than
    Linux. Seeing as Linux and NT-based OSs are arguably more-or-less
    equally stable, your claim falls flat. Thank you, have a nice day.

    Oh, one more thing. It's a fools game to use a desktop OS as a
    server. For a home-based toy server, I guess it would do.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Micheal Robert Zium wrote:

    > Purl Gurl wrote:

    (snipped)

    > >However, Win98 is not quite as stable as
    > >the NT5 group. Nonetheless, over the past
    > >five or six years, I can count on one hand
    > >how many Blue Screen Of Death incidents
    > >we experienced. Most crashes are contributed
    > >to user mistakes or bad software.

    > >Compared to Linux, performance is about
    > >the same; no real differences. Linux,
    > >though, is not as stable as Win98 nor
    > >offers as much software and hardware
    > >support and compatibility.

    > Up to the last quoted paragraph, I was mostly in agreement. However,
    > claiming Win98 is more stable than Linux is either ignorance or
    > stupidity.

    Beginning an article with personal insults renders
    any subsequent thoughts suspect and worthy only of
    being discarded.

    Clearly your intent is to insult, is to troll.


    Purl Gurl
  11. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Purl Gurl wrote:

    > Micheal Robert Zium wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Purl Gurl wrote:
    >
    >
    > (snipped)
    >
    >
    >>>However, Win98 is not quite as stable as
    >>>the NT5 group. Nonetheless, over the past
    >>>five or six years, I can count on one hand
    >>>how many Blue Screen Of Death incidents
    >>>we experienced. Most crashes are contributed
    >>>to user mistakes or bad software.
    >
    >
    >>>Compared to Linux, performance is about
    >>>the same; no real differences. Linux,
    >>>though, is not as stable as Win98 nor
    >>>offers as much software and hardware
    >>>support and compatibility.
    >
    >
    >
    >>Up to the last quoted paragraph, I was mostly in agreement. However,
    >>claiming Win98 is more stable than Linux is either ignorance or
    >>stupidity.
    >
    >
    > Beginning an article with personal insults renders
    > any subsequent thoughts suspect and worthy only of
    > being discarded.
    >
    > Clearly your intent is to insult, is to troll.
    >
    >
    > Purl Gurl
    Hear Hear
    --
    May the ping be with you ....

    Registered Linux user number 355729
  12. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Stalks wrote:

    > Purl Gurl wrote:
    > > Micheal Robert Zium wrote:
    > >>Purl Gurl wrote:

    (snipped)


    > >>>Compared to Linux, performance is about
    > >>>the same; no real differences. Linux,
    > >>>though, is not as stable as Win98 nor
    > >>>offers as much software and hardware
    > >>>support and compatibility.

    > >>Up to the last quoted paragraph, I was mostly in agreement.

    > May the ping be with you ....

    Oh no you don't! The Evil Forces that be, know of
    the Ping O' Death! No pings allowed here!

    I should clarify my thoughts with a hope of not
    venturing too far off topic. Don't want to start
    an operating system flame war either!

    My comparison is temporal. During circa Win9.x
    Linux was rather unstable, compared to Win,
    during those golden glory days.

    I have Redhat 9 on a machine here and love it!

    Loading up a machine here with Redhat is a direct
    result of a suggestion by a participant here.
    He responded with some help for me on firewall
    decisions and what would be best. I followed
    his lead and am now working on a Linux firewall,
    a transparent style firewall.

    Thank goodness for Ebay and cheap machines!

    Back to off topic, years back Linux was prone
    to brain farts and grand mal seizures. You
    are crusing along just fine then suddenly
    Linux freezes and your keyboard covered
    with ice. Weird. Most often, you never could
    figure out what happen but a few bonks upon
    the top of your monitor would clear the
    picture much like with old black and white
    television sets, which also afforded an
    infinite number of shades of gray.

    Today, this is not true. Linux is a fine
    operating system, for technogeeks. I would
    use Linux long before NT5 types.

    No pings, though, ok?

    May the RAM be with you!

    * bleats like a goat *

    Have to add this, last night a momma skunk, a resident
    here at home, showed up with eight kittens, no, no,
    skunk kittens. Single mom, lots of kids, poor girl.
    We now have a large family of wild skunks actually
    living with us and being fed by us. Don't like it
    much, though, when they try to eat my toes.

    May the SKUNK be with you!


    Purl Gurl
  13. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Purl Gurl wrote:

    > Stalks wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Purl Gurl wrote:
    >>
    >>>Micheal Robert Zium wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Purl Gurl wrote:
    >
    >
    > (snipped)
    >
    >
    >
    >>>>>Compared to Linux, performance is about
    >>>>>the same; no real differences. Linux,
    >>>>>though, is not as stable as Win98 nor
    >>>>>offers as much software and hardware
    >>>>>support and compatibility.
    >
    >
    >>>>Up to the last quoted paragraph, I was mostly in agreement.
    >
    >
    >>May the ping be with you ....
    >
    >
    > Oh no you don't! The Evil Forces that be, know of
    > the Ping O' Death! No pings allowed here!
    >

    All my pings are pink and fluffy

    >
    > I have Redhat 9 on a machine here and love it!
    >
    > Loading up a machine here with Redhat is a direct
    > result of a suggestion by a participant here.
    > He responded with some help for me on firewall
    > decisions and what would be best. I followed
    > his lead and am now working on a Linux firewall,
    > a transparent style firewall.
    >
    > Thank goodness for Ebay and cheap machines!
    >

    Over the past 2 weeks I have just setup a transparent bridged firewall
    using Debian Linux. This was due to having a block of IPs and didnt want
    to run a software firewall on each windows PC that was connected. Until
    a fortnight ago I had no prior knowledge of linux and just used google
    as my mentor. Needless to say I now have what I would consider a very
    secure internal network. I also bought a Pentium II 350 SmallFormFactor
    workstation to serve this purpose from ebay for £20. I even picked the
    item up personally as it was being held just a 20min drive away. Bargain!

    I think your original statement of "All operating systems have good
    points and bad points. No operating system is truly superior to
    another." sums everything up great.

    Regards,
    Stalks
    --
    May the ping be with you ....

    Registered Linux user number: 355729
  14. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Stalks wrote:

    > Purl Gurl wrote:
    > > Stalks wrote:
    > >>Purl Gurl wrote:
    > >>>Micheal Robert Zium wrote:
    > >>>>Purl Gurl wrote:

    (snipped)

    > > I have Redhat 9 on a machine here and love it!

    > > Thank goodness for Ebay and cheap machines!

    > Over the past 2 weeks I have just setup a transparent bridged firewall
    > using Debian Linux. This was due to having a block of IPs and didnt want
    > to run a software firewall on each windows PC that was connected. Until
    > a fortnight ago I had no prior knowledge of linux and just used google
    > as my mentor. Needless to say I now have what I would consider a very
    > secure internal network. I also bought a Pentium II 350 SmallFormFactor
    > workstation to serve this purpose from ebay for £20. I even picked the
    > item up personally as it was being held just a 20min drive away. Bargain!

    Well, that's fine and all, except you Europeans drive on
    the wrong side of the road! Bunch of crazies, I say!

    That is one of the strong points of Linux; it will run just
    fine on almost any machine. Very low RAM and CPU usage,
    very efficient operating system. Apache is much like that.

    You are more brave than I! Over a period of time, I have
    picked up a half-dozen books on Linux to help me learn.
    However, like you, I found a lot of great information
    on Linux firewalls through Google.

    Lots of great information is found in this newsgroup, as well!
    Don't participate much here, but I do read here daily.

    "a fortnight ago"

    Careful, you are revealing a cultural language inflection!
    I enjoy this, being an English language geek.


    May the POLECAT be with you.

    Purl Gurl
  15. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Purl Gurl wrote:

    >Micheal Robert Zium wrote:
    >
    >> Up to the last quoted paragraph, I was mostly in agreement. However,
    >> claiming Win98 is more stable than Linux is either ignorance or
    >> stupidity.
    >
    >Beginning an article with personal insults renders
    >any subsequent thoughts suspect and worthy only of
    >being discarded.
    >
    >Clearly your intent is to insult, is to troll.

    My apologies for offending you. I assure you I did not intend to
    personally insult you, nor to troll you. Allow me to rephrase:

    Could you please explain your statement[1] that Linux is less stable
    than Win98? Thank you.

    [1](your statement, directly quoted for your convenience)
    >Compared to Linux, performance is about
    >the same; no real differences. Linux,
    >though, is not as stable as Win98 nor
    >offers as much software and hardware
    >support and compatibility.
Ask a new question

Read More

Firewalls Security Networking