Which Router for VPN and Webhosting

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by wendy, Sep 12, 2003.

  1. wendy

    Jim Watt Guest

    does it matter? It seems to be quite stable for me.
    Jim Watt, Sep 14, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. wendy

    Duane Arnold Guest

    That's your opinion is it not? :)

    Duane :)
    Duane Arnold, Sep 15, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. wendy

    JimL Guest

    Pure Bullshit!

    JimL, Sep 15, 2003
  4. wendy

    Jim Watt Guest

    Why do you say that apart from your ignorance?
    Jim Watt, Sep 15, 2003
  5. wendy

    Jim Watt Guest

    I'm paid to have opinions. You can also see I'm running win/98
    Jim Watt, Sep 15, 2003
  6. On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:20:59 GMT, Duane Arnold spoketh
    Comparing Win98SE to Win95a/b/c or WinME, I think you'll see that
    Win98SE comes out as the most stable version...

    Lars M. Hansen
    Lars M. Hansen, Sep 15, 2003
  7. wendy

    Jim Watt Guest

    Indeed, thats what I am presently running. its not wonderful at
    managing memory, but for a well written webserver that should not
    really be an issue and memory is now very cheap.
    Jim Watt, Sep 15, 2003
  8. wendy

    Duane Arnold Guest

    I hear this is true about Win 98SE and its stableness. But on the other
    hand, it's old technology that is not being supported by MS. And
    therefore, it's not going to put any $$$ in my pockets. Post something
    about any major company that is using the out dated Win 98 technology as
    a WEB server.

    I'll take it even further. Can you find one programming book for WEB
    applications in today's environment for this WEB server application and
    Win 98?

    Duane :)
    Duane Arnold, Sep 16, 2003
  9. wendy

    David Guest

    Unfortunately the definition of "well written webserver" generally includes
    the fact that it is based on a user account security model. Something which
    Win 9x simply doesn't allow for. It may be fine for a webserver that never
    gets accessed from the internet or on a LAN that "totally" trusted, but not
    And since in a previous post you happened to mention xitami, just plug
    "xitami vulnerabilities" into google and see what you find. Not to say
    xitami is any better or worse than something else, but running xitami on
    win98 is not the same as running it on an ntfs based version of windows or
    David, Sep 16, 2003
  10. wendy

    Jim Watt Guest

    The PC I am using to write this has 98SE on it, I took off the XP it
    came with when I read the EULA. it seems quite stable and
    does graphics, writes DVD's records audio and video and
    has not had any virus's / trojans and the clock keeps good
    time :)

    It also runs PERL ok which I use to develop scripts for web

    However why we got into this is that the original poster mentioned
    she wanted to run a web server and I pointed out that you +can+
    do that on a win/98 machine as its likely to be an undemanding
    task so an old heap of junk does nicely. I installed a company
    intranet web server on a P200 recently and it goes great.

    As I have also said, for a serious public web server its better
    to outsource the hosting. I calculate it costs me around five
    pounds a month in electricity to run a computer 24/7 there
    are good deals for less and there are other benefits like
    not having to worry about conectivity, backup power and
    equipment costs and failures or the thing catching fire.

    Running one for testing and development is another thing
    of course.
    Jim Watt, Sep 16, 2003
  11. wendy

    John Guest

    It can be a good solution but be sure you are getting what you think
    you are paying for. Look behind the curtain to see if the wizard is real.

    Wow! You must have the most expensive electricity in the world! How can
    your hosting company stay in business charging less than electricity
    costs? Do they get "bulk rates" from the power company? Plus they provide
    security, backup, intrusion detection and connectivity? Maybe you need to
    plug that calculator back in?

    If you try arguing that hosting costs less for you than buying
    equipment, hiring competent administrators and the electricity I will
    listen and probably believe you. Your current argument defies logic.
    John, Sep 16, 2003
  12. wendy

    Duane Arnold Guest

    I appreciate your comments here so don't get me wrong.
    If that is what you choose to do, then who am I to knock it. It's your
    I don't think the OP cares, because it was indicated by the OP that it was
    IIS and Win 2k that was being used.
    The operative word is Intranet and one should not have any issues in taking
    a Win 98 machine and this WEB server application and deploying it for
    internal company usage. On. the other hand, what are they using for the
    Internet? I would hope it's not a Win 98 machine running this Web Server

    What's to say that some savvy pissed-off company employee couldn't attack
    that Win98 Intranet Web server machine and take it down, because there is
    for sure nothing on that Win 98 O/S that's going to stop he or she from
    doing it. Maybe, the better approach is to take a Win NT based O/S and lock
    it down so that it cannot be attacked easily from in side the network.
    All that's great. But some people just want to know how to do it the MS way.
    And maybe, that's the OP's intent is to learn just like I did when I did the
    same thing.
    There's that word PERL. I am a strictly MS.
    Yes, that's for sure.

    Duane :)
    Duane Arnold, Sep 16, 2003
  13. wendy

    Jim Watt Guest

    I read somewhere that MS have a version of PERL, but that
    its buggy. OTOH I see they have been funding Activestate
    which is the version I use

    Jim Watt, Sep 16, 2003
  14. wendy

    Jim Watt Guest

    Its produced from oil, gas water and uranium are cheaper. Running a
    PC 24x7 costs me GBP 5pm which is more than the cost of hosting.
    If you add the cost of administration, hardware, connectivity there
    is simply no comparison. Maybe if I were hosting 100 sites it might
    be different.
    They most certainly do all of those things, plus as they are in
    another country they pay less for electricity and connectivity.
    Does that explain it OK? At least you thought about it rather
    than the idiot who just said 'bullshit'
    Jim Watt, Sep 16, 2003
  15. wendy

    BC Guest

    Actually, Win98SE actually can be locked up better than Win2k/XP
    with a few 3rd party add-ons and it's inherently more secure in
    theory because it has fewer exploitable ports, as demonstrated by
    how Win98/95 PC's being immune from Blaster-type attacks. As far
    as Win98 not being supported, that's irrelevant -- if it works,
    it works. And you don't have to worry about silly things like
    user licenses with Win98.

    The only real issue involving Win98 is stability. Install it clean
    on a freshly formatted drive and be very wary of updates to IE and
    Media Player. Avoid all updates to the latter and maybe only update
    IE to just plain 5.0 or 5.01 SP2 at best (both available at evolt.org)
    but download and use Opera or Mozilla (the Firebird build rocks)
    for everyday safe browsing.

    Xitami is a very fast (mucho faster than Apache and IIS), stable
    Web and FTP server. It uses text files for configuration, but it's
    much easier than Apache.

    As far as the basic question posted goes, I can vouch for the
    Linksys firewall router, but I've run into a high rate of heat
    sensitivity, with the router freezing, with the cheaper routers
    in general and SMC in particular. Linksys hasn't been as bad as
    the SMC's but I've run into two that needed "supplemental cooling,"
    i.e. a nearby fan, with the last one being the Linksys firewall
    router model.

    And whether your ISP allows you to run a web server....

    Hope this helps.

    BC, Sep 17, 2003
  16. wendy

    David Guest

    That is simply untrue. Win 9x's immunity to "Blaster-type" attacks has to do
    with it not having DCOM. And you can disable dcom without adverse affects on
    most home use 2k and XP machines. And for the machines where you can't, it
    is usually because it is being used for something which 9x machines can't
    do. You can set up a standalone 2k or XP box to have no listening services
    on your exposed adapters just like 98.
    If you think the only issue with 98 is stability then you obviously know
    very little about security.
    David, Sep 17, 2003
  17. wendy

    Jim Watt Guest

    Well, I am installing win2000 wherever possible because for my money
    its the best OS around, but it has greater hardware needs than Win98SE
    and the web server app is important too. I was uncomfortable with IIS

    Xitami is indeed configured by text files which I prefer to filling
    the registry with cryptic keys and has a nice friendly front end.
    Jim Watt, Sep 17, 2003
  18. wendy

    BC Guest

    Duh. Be careful about making cracks like that -- it's obvious you're
    the one who knows little about security. I've been setting up secure
    public access workstations and networks for public libraries for years
    now. Yes, Win98/95 is inherently slightly less secure than Win2K/Xp,
    but as I mentioned, with the addition of a choice few third party
    add-ons, you can lock up Win98/95 far better than Win2K/XP. Been
    there, done it, over and over. I have one large public library that's
    located across from both a high school and a community college, and we
    found the security built into Win2k inferior to Win95B workstations
    running Fortres and a couple of free utils. NTFS provides zero security
    advantages over Fat32 thanks to some widely available software drivers
    (as a matter of fact, I recently recovered a defective notebook NTFS-
    formatted disk by hooking it to a Win98 PC via an adapter, running one
    of the drivers, and just simply dragging all the "lost" files over to
    another hard drive.)

    My two major gripes with the security in Win2k/XP is that it reaches
    a low ceiling very quickly, beyond which it's very difficult to
    improve, and that there is all these *&^@# programming hooks and ports
    meant mostly for Microsoft's own products, but which were always very
    problematic as far as security goes. The Blaster worm and an even more
    recent revealed similar security hole should be more than sufficient
    evidence to how really secure Win2K/XP really are.

    BC, Sep 17, 2003
  19. wendy

    BC Guest

    I almost forgot to comment on this. You right, sort of, in
    regards to Blaster-type exploits, but you've also proven my point
    about Win98/95 security versus Win2K/XP. With the former you
    already have some inherent protection and just need to add some
    3rd party stuff to really enhance it, but with the latter you're
    already having to screw with disabling low level functions that
    Microsoft doesn't want you to touch and which may cause flaky


    And the fact that Microsoft felt compelled to hide all their
    Microsoft.com servers behind Akamai's caching Linux servers in
    response to the Blaster worm should tell you all you need to
    know about Windows 2000/XP/2003's security.

    So there....

    BC, Sep 17, 2003
  20. wendy

    Leythos Guest

    Since a simple firewall can block the DDOS, DOS, Blaster, etc. why would
    the hide.
    Leythos, Sep 17, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.