Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure? Is a firewall enough?
Thanks
Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure? Is a firewall enough?
Thanks
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
news plakte het volgende aan elkaar op 21/06/2004 21:41:
> Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure?
Yes.
Is a firewall enough?
No. Update your software (Windows, browser, mailsoftware,...), use a
firewall (up-to-date), a virusscanner (up-to-date), spyware
cleaningtools (dito) and one golden tip: never open any e-mails of
people you don't know and be very carefull with opening attachments.
>
> Thanks
>
>
BarKlee
--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx (1890 - 1977) --
Replace ".invalid" with ".be" in e-mail
news plakte het volgende aan elkaar op 21/06/2004 21:41:
> Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure?
Yes.
Is a firewall enough?
No. Update your software (Windows, browser, mailsoftware,...), use a
firewall (up-to-date), a virusscanner (up-to-date), spyware
cleaningtools (dito) and one golden tip: never open any e-mails of
people you don't know and be very carefull with opening attachments.
>
> Thanks
>
>
BarKlee
--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx (1890 - 1977) --
Replace ".invalid" with ".be" in e-mail
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
BarKlee plakte het volgende aan elkaar op 22/06/2004 0:06:
> news plakte het volgende aan elkaar op 21/06/2004 21:41:
>
>> Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure?
>
>
> Yes.
>
> Is a firewall enough?
>
> No. Update your software (Windows, browser, mailsoftware,...), use a
> firewall (up-to-date), a virusscanner (up-to-date), spyware
> cleaningtools (dito) and one golden tip: never open any e-mails of
> people you don't know and be very carefull with opening attachments.
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
> BarKlee
>
>
Another tip: consider using a non-Microsoft browser and e-mailprogram.
For example; Mozilla, Firefox & Thunderbird, Opera, Netscape, .....
--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx (1890 - 1977) --
Replace ".invalid" with ".be" in e-mail
BarKlee plakte het volgende aan elkaar op 22/06/2004 0:06:
> news plakte het volgende aan elkaar op 21/06/2004 21:41:
>
>> Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure?
>
>
> Yes.
>
> Is a firewall enough?
>
> No. Update your software (Windows, browser, mailsoftware,...), use a
> firewall (up-to-date), a virusscanner (up-to-date), spyware
> cleaningtools (dito) and one golden tip: never open any e-mails of
> people you don't know and be very carefull with opening attachments.
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
> BarKlee
>
>
Another tip: consider using a non-Microsoft browser and e-mailprogram.
For example; Mozilla, Firefox & Thunderbird, Opera, Netscape, .....
--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx (1890 - 1977) --
Replace ".invalid" with ".be" in e-mail
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
news wrote:
> Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure?
No, since it does not know user and access right, it can never be a secure
OS.
> Is a firewall enough?
The tools for win98 commonly called firewalls have no real effect apart from
beeing unneccessary, eating ressources and annoying the user with pop-ups
claiming that the software has successfully prevented an 'attack', which in
most cases is complete nonsense.
Concerning services win98 is in fact better that the later windows versions
(win2000, XP), which will run a lot services by default while win98 will
normally run only the Netbios stuff, which can even be unbound from the
external interface resulting in a sysrtem that offers no (public) services
at all. Add client software that is more secure than the standard Microsoft
stuff and a user who knows what he/she is doing especially when installaing
software (keep the codebase small) and such a machine can be called, hm,
well, 'quite' secure.
Wolfgang
--
A foreign body and a foreign mind
never welcome in the land of the blind.
from 'Not one of us', (c) 1980 Peter Gabriel
news wrote:
> Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure?
No, since it does not know user and access right, it can never be a secure
OS.
> Is a firewall enough?
The tools for win98 commonly called firewalls have no real effect apart from
beeing unneccessary, eating ressources and annoying the user with pop-ups
claiming that the software has successfully prevented an 'attack', which in
most cases is complete nonsense.
Concerning services win98 is in fact better that the later windows versions
(win2000, XP), which will run a lot services by default while win98 will
normally run only the Netbios stuff, which can even be unbound from the
external interface resulting in a sysrtem that offers no (public) services
at all. Add client software that is more secure than the standard Microsoft
stuff and a user who knows what he/she is doing especially when installaing
software (keep the codebase small) and such a machine can be called, hm,
well, 'quite' secure.
Wolfgang
--
A foreign body and a foreign mind
never welcome in the land of the blind.
from 'Not one of us', (c) 1980 Peter Gabriel
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
"Wolfgang Kueter" <wolfgang@shconnect.de> wrote in message
news:cb7nfg$g89$1@news.shlink.de...
> news wrote:
>
> > Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure?
>
> No, since it does not know user and access right, it can never be a secure
> OS.
>
> > Is a firewall enough?
>
> The tools for win98 commonly called firewalls have no real effect apart
from
> beeing unneccessary, eating ressources and annoying the user with pop-ups
> claiming that the software has successfully prevented an 'attack', which
in
> most cases is complete nonsense.
>
> Concerning services win98 is in fact better that the later windows
versions
> (win2000, XP), which will run a lot services by default while win98 will
> normally run only the Netbios stuff, which can even be unbound from the
> external interface resulting in a sysrtem that offers no (public) services
> at all. Add client software that is more secure than the standard
Microsoft
> stuff and a user who knows what he/she is doing especially when
installaing
> software (keep the codebase small) and such a machine can be called, hm,
> well, 'quite' secure.
So Zonealarm for example does not protect against hackers?
Thanks
"Wolfgang Kueter" <wolfgang@shconnect.de> wrote in message
news:cb7nfg$g89$1@news.shlink.de...
> news wrote:
>
> > Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure?
>
> No, since it does not know user and access right, it can never be a secure
> OS.
>
> > Is a firewall enough?
>
> The tools for win98 commonly called firewalls have no real effect apart
from
> beeing unneccessary, eating ressources and annoying the user with pop-ups
> claiming that the software has successfully prevented an 'attack', which
in
> most cases is complete nonsense.
>
> Concerning services win98 is in fact better that the later windows
versions
> (win2000, XP), which will run a lot services by default while win98 will
> normally run only the Netbios stuff, which can even be unbound from the
> external interface resulting in a sysrtem that offers no (public) services
> at all. Add client software that is more secure than the standard
Microsoft
> stuff and a user who knows what he/she is doing especially when
installaing
> software (keep the codebase small) and such a machine can be called, hm,
> well, 'quite' secure.
So Zonealarm for example does not protect against hackers?
Thanks
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
"news" <geerge@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bBKBc.3276$dx3.25772@newsb.telia.net...
>
> "Wolfgang Kueter" <wolfgang@shconnect.de> wrote in message
> news:cb7nfg$g89$1@news.shlink.de...
> > news wrote:
> >
> > > Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure?
> >
> > No, since it does not know user and access right, it can never be a
secure
> > OS.
> >
> > > Is a firewall enough?
> >
> > The tools for win98 commonly called firewalls have no real effect apart
> from
> > beeing unneccessary, eating ressources and annoying the user with
pop-ups
> > claiming that the software has successfully prevented an 'attack', which
> in
> > most cases is complete nonsense.
> >
> > Concerning services win98 is in fact better that the later windows
> versions
> > (win2000, XP), which will run a lot services by default while win98 will
> > normally run only the Netbios stuff, which can even be unbound from the
> > external interface resulting in a sysrtem that offers no (public)
services
> > at all. Add client software that is more secure than the standard
> Microsoft
> > stuff and a user who knows what he/she is doing especially when
> installaing
> > software (keep the codebase small) and such a machine can be called, hm,
> > well, 'quite' secure.
Hi! I have separated netbios from tcp/ip. No use for a firewall? Can i close
all ports manually and just have the ones i use opened?
Thanks
"news" <geerge@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bBKBc.3276$dx3.25772@newsb.telia.net...
>
> "Wolfgang Kueter" <wolfgang@shconnect.de> wrote in message
> news:cb7nfg$g89$1@news.shlink.de...
> > news wrote:
> >
> > > Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure?
> >
> > No, since it does not know user and access right, it can never be a
secure
> > OS.
> >
> > > Is a firewall enough?
> >
> > The tools for win98 commonly called firewalls have no real effect apart
> from
> > beeing unneccessary, eating ressources and annoying the user with
pop-ups
> > claiming that the software has successfully prevented an 'attack', which
> in
> > most cases is complete nonsense.
> >
> > Concerning services win98 is in fact better that the later windows
> versions
> > (win2000, XP), which will run a lot services by default while win98 will
> > normally run only the Netbios stuff, which can even be unbound from the
> > external interface resulting in a sysrtem that offers no (public)
services
> > at all. Add client software that is more secure than the standard
> Microsoft
> > stuff and a user who knows what he/she is doing especially when
> installaing
> > software (keep the codebase small) and such a machine can be called, hm,
> > well, 'quite' secure.
Hi! I have separated netbios from tcp/ip. No use for a firewall? Can i close
all ports manually and just have the ones i use opened?
Thanks
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
"news" <geerge@yahoo.com> said
> Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure?
Yes. Microsoft released a patch a couple of years ago specifically designed
to do this.
It's called the Windows XP Upgrade.
--
Kwyj.
(Remove your panties to reply by email)
"news" <geerge@yahoo.com> said
> Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure?
Yes. Microsoft released a patch a couple of years ago specifically designed
to do this.
It's called the Windows XP Upgrade.
--
Kwyj.
(Remove your panties to reply by email)
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:12:06 +0000, Kwyjibo. wrote:
> "news" <geerge@yahoo.com> said
>
>> Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure?
>
> Yes. Microsoft released a patch a couple of years ago specifically designed
> to do this.
>
> It's called the Windows XP Upgrade.
Or you can do what Microsoft did to get NT C2 certified... remove the
modem, network card, floppy, and cd-rom, then put the machine in a locked
room. It is then secure.
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:12:06 +0000, Kwyjibo. wrote:
> "news" <geerge@yahoo.com> said
>
>> Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure?
>
> Yes. Microsoft released a patch a couple of years ago specifically designed
> to do this.
>
> It's called the Windows XP Upgrade.
Or you can do what Microsoft did to get NT C2 certified... remove the
modem, network card, floppy, and cd-rom, then put the machine in a locked
room. It is then secure.
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
In article <wUXBc.16$lL2.4939@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, jeff@no-spam.net
says...
> Or you can do what Microsoft did to get NT C2 certified... remove the
> modem, network card, floppy, and cd-rom, then put the machine in a locked
> room. It is then secure.
Spoken like a true Linux zealot.
--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
In article <wUXBc.16$lL2.4939@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, jeff@no-spam.net
says...
> Or you can do what Microsoft did to get NT C2 certified... remove the
> modem, network card, floppy, and cd-rom, then put the machine in a locked
> room. It is then secure.
Spoken like a true Linux zealot.
--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
In article <MPG.1b421e0d9620b99898a686@news-server.columbus.rr.com>,
void@nowhere.com says...
> In article <wUXBc.16$lL2.4939@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, jeff@no-spam.net
> says...
> > Or you can do what Microsoft did to get NT C2 certified... remove the
> > modem, network card, floppy, and cd-rom, then put the machine in a locked
> > room. It is then secure.
>
> Spoken like a true Linux zealot.
While I hate to follow my own post, here is the C2 config link from MS:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winntas/deploy/confeat/c2ch
kls.mspx#XSLTsection124121120120
--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
In article <MPG.1b421e0d9620b99898a686@news-server.columbus.rr.com>,
void@nowhere.com says...
> In article <wUXBc.16$lL2.4939@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, jeff@no-spam.net
> says...
> > Or you can do what Microsoft did to get NT C2 certified... remove the
> > modem, network card, floppy, and cd-rom, then put the machine in a locked
> > room. It is then secure.
>
> Spoken like a true Linux zealot.
While I hate to follow my own post, here is the C2 config link from MS:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winntas/deploy/confeat/c2ch
kls.mspx#XSLTsection124121120120
--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:52:48 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
>In article <MPG.1b421e0d9620b99898a686@news-server.columbus.rr.com>,
>void@nowhere.com says...
>> In article <wUXBc.16$lL2.4939@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, jeff@no-spam.net
>> says...
>> > Or you can do what Microsoft did to get NT C2 certified... remove the
>> > modem, network card, floppy, and cd-rom, then put the machine in a locked
>> > room. It is then secure.
>>
>> Spoken like a true Linux zealot.
>
>While I hate to follow my own post, here is the C2 config link from MS:
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winntas/deploy/confeat/c2ch
>kls.mspx#XSLTsection124121120120
<http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winntas/deploy/confeat/c2chkls.mspx#XSLTsection124121120120>
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:52:48 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
>In article <MPG.1b421e0d9620b99898a686@news-server.columbus.rr.com>,
>void@nowhere.com says...
>> In article <wUXBc.16$lL2.4939@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, jeff@no-spam.net
>> says...
>> > Or you can do what Microsoft did to get NT C2 certified... remove the
>> > modem, network card, floppy, and cd-rom, then put the machine in a locked
>> > room. It is then secure.
>>
>> Spoken like a true Linux zealot.
>
>While I hate to follow my own post, here is the C2 config link from MS:
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winntas/deploy/confeat/c2ch
>kls.mspx#XSLTsection124121120120
<http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winntas/deploy/confeat/c2chkls.mspx#XSLTsection124121120120>
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
news wrote:
> Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure? Is a firewall enough?
A firewall like ZoneAlarm counters some kinds of attacks but not others.
Unfortunately, we need more than one kind of defense if we want to be
secure and to thwart intrusions.
news wrote:
> Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure? Is a firewall enough?
A firewall like ZoneAlarm counters some kinds of attacks but not others.
Unfortunately, we need more than one kind of defense if we want to be
secure and to thwart intrusions.
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:36:45 +0000, Leythos wrote:
> Spoken like a true Linux zealot.
>
> --
I was being sarcastic.
I used to be an NT admin before starting my own
business, and I poked fun at the C2 certification even then, as did a
number of people, technical writers included.
As for being a Linux zealot... yes, it is obvious from the headers that
this computer is running on Debian. But my other two computers are not
(Win98SE and Win2K), so that kind of shoots that theory.
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:36:45 +0000, Leythos wrote:
> Spoken like a true Linux zealot.
>
> --
I was being sarcastic.
I used to be an NT admin before starting my ownbusiness, and I poked fun at the C2 certification even then, as did a
number of people, technical writers included.
As for being a Linux zealot... yes, it is obvious from the headers that
this computer is running on Debian. But my other two computers are not
(Win98SE and Win2K), so that kind of shoots that theory.
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
In article <eh8Cc.415$lL2.122697@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, jeff@no-
spam.net says...
> I was being sarcastic.
Sorry, missed the tone in your type
--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
In article <eh8Cc.415$lL2.122697@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, jeff@no-
spam.net says...
> I was being sarcastic.
Sorry, missed the tone in your type
--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
In article <JfkCc.3020$lL2.207065@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, not@t.all
says...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:50:36 +0000, Leythos wrote:
>
> > In article <eh8Cc.415$lL2.122697@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, jeff@no-
> > spam.net says...
> >> I was being sarcastic.
> >
> > Sorry, missed the tone in your type
> >
> > --
> Boy do you guys need to cut back on the caffiene intake. We are talking
> about an OS, not a religion.
Ha Ha Ha - you need to understand that security is a Religion, either
you believe in it or you don't
--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
In article <JfkCc.3020$lL2.207065@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, not@t.all
says...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:50:36 +0000, Leythos wrote:
>
> > In article <eh8Cc.415$lL2.122697@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, jeff@no-
> > spam.net says...
> >> I was being sarcastic.
> >
> > Sorry, missed the tone in your type
> >
> > --
> Boy do you guys need to cut back on the caffiene intake. We are talking
> about an OS, not a religion.
Ha Ha Ha - you need to understand that security is a Religion, either
you believe in it or you don't
--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:08:38 +0000, Leythos wrote:
> Ha Ha Ha - you need to understand that security is a Religion, either
> you believe in it or you don't
Touche'
Excellent point.
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:08:38 +0000, Leythos wrote:
> Ha Ha Ha - you need to understand that security is a Religion, either
> you believe in it or you don't
Touche'
Excellent point.
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:02:57 -0700, Nemo S. spoketh
>
>
>Actually security is a "CONDITION" and has "NOTHING" to do with
>"BELIEF" and we create the "CONDITIONS" of security by our "CONDUCT"
>just like "FREEDOM"...
>
>facts = truth, belief = insanity
>
I think you must have missed the smiley face at the end of his statement
....
Lars M. Hansen
http://www.hansenonline.net
(replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:02:57 -0700, Nemo S. spoketh
>
>
>Actually security is a "CONDITION" and has "NOTHING" to do with
>"BELIEF" and we create the "CONDITIONS" of security by our "CONDUCT"
>just like "FREEDOM"...
>
>facts = truth, belief = insanity
>
I think you must have missed the smiley face at the end of his statement
....
Lars M. Hansen
http://www.hansenonline.net
(replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:41:43 GMT, "news" <geerge@yahoo.com> wrote:
|Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure? Is a firewall enough?
|
|Thanks
|
I have been using Kerio 2.1.5 with Win98 for many months and am
satisfied with it. A lot depends on the rules you put into the
firewall.
Obviously an anti-virus program is recommended.
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:41:43 GMT, "news" <geerge@yahoo.com> wrote:
|Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure? Is a firewall enough?
|
|Thanks
|
I have been using Kerio 2.1.5 with Win98 for many months and am
satisfied with it. A lot depends on the rules you put into the
firewall.
Obviously an anti-virus program is recommended.
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
Mock Turtle wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:41:43 GMT, "news" <geerge@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> |Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure? Is a firewall enough?
> |
> |Thanks
> |
>
> I have been using Kerio 2.1.5 with Win98 for many months and am
> satisfied with it. A lot depends on the rules you put into the
> firewall.
>
> Obviously an anti-virus program is recommended.
See:
http://www.geocities.com/yosponge/
Mock Turtle wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:41:43 GMT, "news" <geerge@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> |Is there a way to make Windows 98 secure? Is a firewall enough?
> |
> |Thanks
> |
>
> I have been using Kerio 2.1.5 with Win98 for many months and am
> satisfied with it. A lot depends on the rules you put into the
> firewall.
>
> Obviously an anti-virus program is recommended.
See:
http://www.geocities.com/yosponge/
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram