Warning: Unresponsive script

[dhouwn]

Users that think that AVs protect them usually wind up infected, but it sounds like Colin has been lucky so far. I hope the luck continues.

Speaking about luck, he might reduce the chance of getting infected by going back to Win9x, since it's even more exotic than 2K nowadays (and more different to XP) and therefore the malware generally found in the wild is more likely to be incompatible with it.

[Alan Baxter]

Nah, Win9x isn't stable enough to "go months without needing a reboot". But Windows XP certainly is. However, XP does need to be rebooted once every month or so to install security updates.

[therube]

> BTW, you really shouldn't use an unsupported operating system online anymore.

I don't really buy into that either.
If I (still) had Win2K, I would use it without worry.
I liked Win2K too. Too me it was the most responsive, lightest feeling OS MS put out.

There were only a few features that moved me to XP (Fast User Switching being one).

XP is going EOL, like I'm going to worry.

Vista/W7 are total pigs with a terrible UI.
I am hard pressed to find any benefit of that pair over XP.

[Alan Baxter]

> BTW, you really shouldn't use an unsupported operating system online anymore.

I don't really buy into that either.
If I (still) had Win2K, I would use it without worry.

I'm curious, why would you be unconcerned about its unpatched vulnerabilities?

That said, I was under the impression that OP thought that an AV and firewall would keep him or her from getting infected. That false sense of security was what alarmed me. If I recall correctly, you run without an AV, so I figure you have no illusions about an AV's effectiveness.

[Colin]

Looking at the list of possibly open holes (security fixes for XP after 2K's EOL) would make me shiver. I hope for you that you are aware of where the limitations of firewalls and anti-virus software are.

I am aware of the limitations of said products, I don't expect them to protect me from doing something stupid, matter of fact, I take a great deal of affront towards products and product makers who think they're smarter than me.

As long as you have a solid firewall and good antivirus available for it and pay attention to popups you'll never have serious issues with the system.

Users that think that AVs protect them usually wind up infected, but it sounds like Colin has been lucky so far. I hope the luck continues.

Not luck, paying attention to what you are doing.

I'm a hardware / software engineer.

I'm not going to say the dumb thing and state that I've never caught something, but when I did, it was very immediately apparent that whatever it was that I was expecting was not what was happening and jumped into battle, usually short lived, to restore and regain my machine(s).

To date, I've never had to wipe a machine, either one of mine, or someone who's brought a blown machine in for me to fix. (Bah, syntax lousy is this.)

[Alan Baxter]

Thank you for responding, Colin. I'm glad to hear you know what you're doing.

[therube]

Maybe I'm wrong, but ...

You've got your firewalls (Nat router & software firewall).
After that you've got your web browser/email/ftp/... facing the Internet.

So something has to get past your firewalls.
Something has to get past your browser/email/ftp/...

Assuming they're kept current.

Then you're using NoScript, so that helps on the browser end.

On the social side, if you bring something into your system & allow it to have its way, it doesn't matter what OS you are running. You can possibly limit damage by limiting yourself (running with reduced rights or whatnot).

No, I use no A/V or any other kind of active content (real-time) protections.
Yes I have disabled (I think) Windows Defender. (I questioned whether anyone has ever been afforded any protection by using Windows Defender. For a long while my conclusion was that no one had. Then finally I did find one instance where it actually did detect & block something. Nonetheless, its not something for me.)

[Alan Baxter]

You've got your firewalls (Nat router & software firewall).
After that you've got your web browser/email/ftp/... facing the Internet.

So something has to get past your firewalls.
Something has to get past your browser/email/ftp/...

Assuming they're kept current.

I understand that you're describing what works for you, and I don't hear you recommending that other people use vulnerable operating systems. Like Colin, if you're wrong, the only person affected is yourself. So, what the hell, go for it!

But, that said, you seem to be implying that using a supported, fully-patched OS isn't an important part of security as long as you have:
- Nat router & software firewall
- Your browser/email/ftp and firewall are kept current.
That is, you can safely turn off Windows security updates as long as you don't use IE. That doesn't sound right to me. I think you may be overlooking something important, but I can't put my finger on it. Do you bother to keep your Windows XP updated? Have I been wasting my time updating Windows every month? Do you really mean this? Can you elaborate further on why keeping the OS updated isn't important?

On the social side, if you bring something into your system & allow it to have its way, it doesn't matter what OS you are running.

I doubt this is true. If I recall correctly, vulnerability patches and some of the features of different OSs help make the computer less vulnerable to rogue software.

[Giorgio Maone]

On the social side, if you bring something into your system & allow it to have its way, it doesn't matter what OS you are running.

I doubt this is true. If I recall correctly, vulnerability patches and some of the features of different OSs help make the computer less vulnerable to rogue software.

I believe what therube means is that if you download an executable and willingly let it run, saying "OK" to all the warnings from the browser and the OS about "running a program downloaded from the Internet is dangerous", said executable is given free rein on your system, or at least on your own user account (which, for all the purposes, is the same on a Personal computer since all the valuable data is accessible from your account even though the system/administrator account is not compromised).

On the other hand, keeping your OS (and any other software/library which consumes externally fed and potentially tainted data) up-to-date with latest security patches is nonetheless extremely important, unless you're OK with running malicious code without any warning, by just viewing an image or even browsing a folder containing a specially crafted document.

[Alan Baxter]

Thank you for the input and examples, Giorgio. I'll continue to keep my XP and other programs fully patched and be wary of social engineering attacks.

[therube]

if you download an executable and willingly let it run, saying "OK" ...

Right.

I don't recommend anyone use or not use anything they're not comfortable with.

you seem to be implying that using a supported, fully-patched OS isn't an important part of security

That is, you can safely turn off Windows security updates as long as you don't use IE

No, I never said that. I keep all my systems/programs fully up to date, I have all Windows security updates. I even keep & update IE (to IE9 on W7 even though I do not use IE).

In the case of Win2K, there are no more updates to be had, so the OS is as up to date as it will ever be.
(Suppose you could do hack-ish things & try to backport current fixes to Win2K, but that is likely a loosing battle.)

What I'm saying it look at what faces the Internet on your system. You set a perimeter around that, you keep things as up to date as you can, & you go with that. If I were running Win2K, I would not be concerned with using it on the Internet.

[Alan Baxter]

you seem to be implying that using a supported, fully-patched OS isn't an important part of security

That is, you can safely turn off Windows security updates as long as you don't use IE

No, I never said that.

Of course you didn't say that. That's why I said implying. It seems to me that from your assertion that using an EOL OS with multiple, public, unpatched vulnerabilities isn't a security risk, it logically follows that the same reasoning can be used with an OS that isn't EOL, i.e. security updates are unnecessary for any OS as long as you think you have it sufficiently ring-fenced.

That said, I'm glad to hear you keep XP updated, but I don't know why you bother, as long as you continue to keep it ring-fenced. (Maybe because it's not a bother thanks to Automatic Updates, eh?)

I keep all my systems/programs fully up to date, I have all Windows security updates. I even keep & update IE (to IE9 on W7 even though I do not use IE).

In the case of Win2K, there are no more updates to be had, so the OS is as up to date as it will ever be.

That is, Win2K has multiple, public, unpatched vulnerabilities which will never be fixed.

What I'm saying it look at what faces the Internet on your system. You set a perimeter around that, you keep things as up to date as you can, & you go with that. If I were running Win2K, I would not be concerned with using it on the Internet.

Understood. It's your choice. I just wanted to know why you think it's a good one.

[therube]

I bother because it is idiocy not to.
It is automatic & pain-free & affords protections against known vulnerabilities. (The very same reasons you have upgraded from FF4.0 to FF4.0.1).

It does not impact (generally) the usage of your system (UAC I do have enabled - for whatever its worth) or (generally) system performance.

The latter cannot be said about (what I consider to be worthless [to me]) A/V type "protections". (Look at how many have A/V protections installed, yet guess what, they still get infected.) I did not buy my relatively modest computer only to have its performance dragged down [I have a Mozilla browser to do that ] by an A/V, nor do I worry about visiting "porn" or "warez" sites "because I might get infected". (Every day you hear - my A/V is up to date, I don't visit porn sites, yet I got these windows popping up & now I have a virus .)

That is, Win2K has multiple, public, unpatched vulnerabilities which will never be fixed.

Right. And that said, if it were my OS, it still would not concern me - I would not limit it's, my, usage because of that. If I were worried about that, I would upgrade (to XP ). (Though I have/use W7 too, I find no advantage, no feature in Vista/W7 that would otherwise entice me to switch from XP.)

[Alan Baxter]

The latter cannot be said about (what I consider to be worthless [to me]) A/V type "protections". (Look at how many have A/V protections installed, yet guess what, they still get infected.) I did not buy my relatively modest computer only to have its performance dragged down [I have a Mozilla browser to do that ] by an A/V, nor do I worry about visiting "porn" or "warez" sites "because I might get infected". (Every day you hear - my A/V is up to date, I don't visit porn sites, yet I got these windows popping up & now I have a virus .)

Agreed.

If I (still) had Win2K, I would use it without worry..

Oh crap. In the heat of conversation I forgot that you aren't actually using an EOL OS. Thank you so much for your elaboration.

[therube]

Changes nothing I've said, Users Who Think XP Is Good Enough Need to See Infection Rates Compared to Windows 7.