I've been having a conversation with my sysadmin at work and he feels
that windows 95 is more secure than windows 2000, or windows XP.  He
feels that he is more secure than if he were to upgrade.  Never mind
that he has never applied a service pack, or browser update (running
win95a) and IE4.

I contend that 2000 and XP are probably the better choice.

Here are a few of my reasons.

Current Updates - win XP and 2000 have Microsoft's attention and they
generally release updates often.

Law of averages - the more holes that an OS accumulates over it's life
span, the more public the info on the exploit is.  Newer operating
system exploits are generally only used by experienced hackers who keep
right up on top of things.  The less people who can exploit you the
better.

Physical security - A win NT based system has the ability to lock the
desktop and restrict accounts.  Win 95 does not.

Security logging - NT systems at least have a log to look back at

No Support - old systems like win 95 may have more holes undiscovered
and they will not be patched.

I am going to mention firewalls as an additional precaution.

Does anyone have any other reasons as to why one should not feel secure
with an older Microsoft OS?

I also ran across an article recently that referenced that Microsoft
used to be #1 on the security advisories list, but they had been doing a
good job, and that other operating systems were showing up more often
lately.  Anyone seen this?  I can't remember where it was?

Thanks
Dan Ellis

              The NOSPIN Group is now offering Free PC Tech
                     support at our newest website:
                          http://freepctech.com