|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: I agree on a lot of what you say but (Reply to this comment)
by skywalk
Actually, Nimda was a combo virus. It searched for vulnerable IIS servers, yes. It also exploited Outlook/Outlook Express (which are included in the OS). Outlook and Outlook Express (O/OE) have, time and time again, proven huge vulnerabilities for all Microsoft OSes. Because of O/OE's ability to 'open' an attachment without explicitly being clicked on, this will always leave O/OE (and the OS) in a compromising position. Yes, you can turn the preview pane off, but the likelyhood someone will click an effected binary is, nevertheless, very high.
However, Nimda was only used as an example. An example to show that MS OSes are being targeted systematically. And further, new features and applications being added can easily add new vulnerabilities to the OS. As far as giving explicit user permissions to specific applications, it won't matter if the compromise involves rebooting and running an application as a startup item. Also, since you have no control over most of the MS bundled services, you can't choose what user those MS bundled services run under. At least, not without breaking the OS/service.
Most of this doesn't apply to the home user. The home user normally doesn't run any of the advanced Windows services (i.e., IIS) except what is preloaded. However, O/OE does apply and is very much relevant. But, the home user probably isn't saavy enough with users/groups and permissions to understand the ramifications of incorrectly set permissions (even if miss-set from MS). So, here again is yet another security problem which is too lengthy to discuss here.
As far as the compatibility issue goes... There should be no difference between XP Home and XP Professional (at least as far as launching applications). I simply double-clicked on this installer under Professional which worked perfectly. The same behavior should apply to Home. It doesn't. Which means something is broken. Having to use the 'compatibility' feature to get it to launch (which I admit that I didn't test) means that there's something that's definitely different in Home's out-of-the-box compatibility. The fact that it wouldn't run the 16 bit installer indicates that it will require the compatibility feature more often then not.
When Apple can produce such a seemless transition between MacOS 9 and MacOS X, it's a wonder why Microsoft can't do the same thing. Yet, here we are in 2001 (nearly 2002) and we still have to go to extraordinary lengths simply to get an app to launch. Amazing, but sad.
|
Nov 05 '01
12:09 pm PST
|
|
I agree on a lot of what you say but (Reply to this comment)
by dragon1
On Nimda the vulnerablity was in ISS server and on any lower versions than IE v5.5 SP2. Plus the holes that both nimda/code red used where fixed well before they came out(one a year ago the other 6 months ago) Plus on limited accounts(where I surf and update from) any thing downloaded(unknownly) by IE or Outlook will not run because they need adminstrator permission to run(which I donot give). Also I agree on the firewall included in XP(I use both that firewall and ZoneAlarm) so I know what is going on. But I have about 20 people who's computers I work on and all but one has removed ZoneAlarm(even my son)because they do not want to be hasseled with it.So with the XP firewall at least they have something to at least partially protect their system.
On compatiblity did you try the compatiblity wizard or right click on the program and try the compatiblity tab?
Michael L Hereid Sr
|
Nov 05 '01
7:29 am PST
|
|
Re: Here is some information for you (Reply to this comment)
by skywalk
Thank you for your comment.
That would be 'eXPerience'. Although, I still think laX Privacy fits better. :)
[only a hash ... is sent]
Ok, it's good to know it's only a hash. But, I'd still like to sniff it and see if that's really what's being sent.
[have yet to find any ... old programs that will not run]
I think you've been lucky. I've found many many 98 apps that won't run on 2000. They may have improved compatibility in Home, but the fact that it wouldn't even run that 16 bit wizard on Home doesn't leave me with much confidence.
And this was JetAdmin from HP. Not a particularly old app. This app even works under 2000. But not XP Home (unless you run it from command.com).
I've heard of others who have had apps that won't run or install on XP as well. So, I think you've just been lucky.
[new features ... increased security, on board cd recording, better memory management, stability, user accounts]
Well, all of the above, except CD recording, was in 2000. None of this was in 98/ME. So, it's definitely a welcome addition to those running 98/ME. Nothing new for those running 2000. But, even all of these security features in 2000 didn't prevent or stop Nimda or a host of other virii. In fact, 2000 was the cause. So, regardless of the supposed enhancements in security, there is no doubt that there are plenty of holes yet to be plugged. My only question about XP Home is what compromises they made in order to dumb it down from Professional. I'm quite sure that we have more to look forward to in the way of future security holes.
XP's security features are only to limit casual access to friends or family from getting into your account. It will, in no way, prevent a determined hacker from getting in. If you want to feel secure on XP, you need to put up a real firewall and even then, they are not perfectly secure.
|
Nov 04 '01
5:00 pm PST
|
|
Here is some information for you (Reply to this comment)
by dragon1
XP= eXPerance
on activation and what is sent to MS check these sites
http://www.licenturion.com/xp/fully-licensed-wpa.txt
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp
http://www.winsupersite.com
AS said on these sites- only a hash of the identy of the hardware is sent to MS and this hash is non-deciferable(sorry on spelling) so they can not know what is your hardware and there is a good chance than more than one machine will send the exact same hash to MS.
As far as activating over the phone- you donot have to register if you donot want to. Just tell them No.
Having used Windows XP since beta1 till now with the full version, I have yet to find any of my old programs that will not install and run on XP(PS I have used computers since 1984).
As far as speed - I have not used 2000 but I have used Windows Me - in fact I dual-boot Windows Me/XP and XP wins hands down.
As for new features how about (in XP Home)increased security(by setting up limited accounts where virius can not run), on board support of cd recording, better memory management,stability,user accounts (where everyone has their own accounts and if wanted nobody else can get into.(password protected.)
But still well written review.
Michael L Hereid Sr
|
Nov 04 '01
4:45 am PST
|
|
|
|
