On Tuesday 16 February 2010 13:26:12 Rob Bell wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:01 -0500, "STeve Andre'" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Windows 2000 is my favorite: faster, less memory consumptive, and > > more stable, I think. > > > > Sadly, unless this machine will be off the net you will have to abandon > > Win2K I think this year, because MS will no longer be supporting it. > > At that point you'll have to move, or risk getting nailed. No amount > > of firewalling, etc will properly protect you. > > > > --STeve Andre' > > I'm certainly no security expert, but it seems to me if an OS is that > old the likelihood of it being targeted for exploits is pretty low. > Most slimeballs trying to craft exploits are looking for the most > bang-for-the-buck (i.e. lazy and greedy) and that means they going to > be against the OS/software combinations that are in highest use. > > Rob
The problem is that a large number of exploits work for both XP and 2000. Next time a horde of patches is released note how many apply to both. A friend put a Win98 machine on the net, as patched as it could be one evening, and the next morning it was compromised. --STeve Andre' _______________________________________________ Thinkpad mailing list [email protected] http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/thinkpad
