Error - template LAYOUT-DATA-WRAPPER not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the LAYOUT-DATA-WRAPPER template could not be found.

Error - template STYLE-SHEET not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the STYLE-SHEET template could not be found.

Error - template SUB-TOP-BANNER not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the SUB-TOP-BANNER template could not be found.
Subject:
From:
Doctor Data <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
PCSOFT - Personal Computer software discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:37:41 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (65 lines)
windows95 (or 98 or me) are not designed for file security to start with.
NT (whose technology 2k and xp is based on) allows you to setup permissions
on certain folders that allow a user and restrict others from accessing it.
you can setup write/execcute/read or no access on specific folders.
Bill Ades
Doctor Data Technology Solutions, inc
Brooklyn, NY
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Ellis" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 5:27 PM
Subject: [PCSOFT] Windows Security advice


> 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
>
>

               The NOSPIN Group Promotions is now offering
              Mandrake Linux or Red Hat Linux CD sets along
             with the OpenOffice CD...  at a great price!!!
             http://freepctech.com/goodies/promotions.shtml

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV