Windows 2000 Pro vs. Windows Xp Pro - Which is more Secure?

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Rob, Jan 26, 2005.

  1. Rob

    al Guest

    It's the other way around. OE allows you to stop the blocking with a
    tickbox. Full Outlook requires registry hack. Personally I think it's a
    good thing though. Stops everyone sending stupid .exe Christmas files
    around all December and getting infected/trojaned with God knows what!




    a
     
    al, Jan 28, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rob

    donnie Guest

    #############################
    No, it's Outlook that automatically blocks the attachments and on some
    versions it's not as simple as unchecking or checking a box.
    donnie.
     
    donnie, Jan 29, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rob

    donnie Guest

    ############################
    They don't work because of problems w/ the service pack according to
    various sites and why shouldn't they work forever?
    donnie.
     
    donnie, Jan 29, 2005
    #23
  4. Rob

    al Guest

    Quite simple answer to that - because (in nearly all cases) the way that
    they work cannot operate in a safe manner. If you want to stick your head
    in the sand by insisting some 5 year old crappy program continues to work,
    regardless of the security implications (or more to the point, that MS
    should never lock their OS's down in a way that might enhance security at
    the expense of remaining interoperable with poorly written software), then
    go right ahead. This is hardly the NG for you if that is the case surely?

    Remember the OP said he was building a new system and wanted to know what OS
    to use? There is ever one answer to that question - the newest possible and
    most secure OS. Which is XP SP2 by a million miles (on the Windows
    platform).

    The only thing I don't really agree with in SP2 is the raw sockets issue.
    It's a silly, half-hearted attempt to prevent something that doesn't need
    preventing. It will hardly stop packet crafting, as most attackers use
    linux anyway. Also, step one layer down the OSI model and suddenly you can
    craft raw frames anyway, so it's not going far enough to even acheive what
    it meant to do. Just drives more security pro's away from Windows.



    a
     
    al, Jan 29, 2005
    #24
  5. Rob

    Jim Watt Guest

    Our 'crappy old dos version' of an accounting package continues to
    run on a /486 and there are no security issues. Why should we change
    it for the latest slower EXPENSIVE windows version ?
     
    Jim Watt, Jan 29, 2005
    #25
  6. Rob

    donnie Guest

    ##############################
    First of all, personal preference plays a part in the answer to the
    what OS to use question. You can't tell people what they like.
    Besides that, I've seen right here in this NG, the theory that it's
    good to stay one OS behind, when it comes to MS. I agree w/ that.
    donnie.
     
    donnie, Jan 30, 2005
    #26
  7. Rob

    al Guest

    I'll say it slowly this time .... the OP wanted to know what MS OS to put on
    his *new* PC. Again, there is only one answer - Windows XP.

    If you want to run a DOS app on a 486, then more power to you. Don't bring
    it anywhere near my network though. If that's something business critical
    and it's your responsibility then you are a complete moron and I would fire
    you on the spot. You really think a 7/8 year old PC is a suitable place for
    a business critical application with its ancient hard disks??

    What you can run at home and what you can run in a business are two very
    different things. If you really want to run some accounting product that
    you bought the best part of a decade ago, then you're hardly an early
    adopter!! I'm also not endorsing MS's licensing by any means - they suck
    you dry whenever they can. However, a new PC with XP and everything else on
    it can easily be bought for £300-400 now. Not too many reasons to stay in
    the dark ages ...




    a
     
    al, Jan 30, 2005
    #27
  8. Rob

    al Guest

    Absolutely. By all means, if you hate XP, then don't use it. But don't
    spread your prejudice to the OP! I hated Win95 when it came out. I just
    couldn't get used to Explorer instead of File Manager (I know FM was in
    Win95 too, but not the point!). However ... a month or so later of using it
    and that disappeared.

    Now there are more important things to worry about. Like security (which
    hopefully this NG is actually about!). If you're stuck with Win2k, then I
    presume you're at least using Firefox or similar. If you want to use IE,
    there is only one version of it that comes near to being safe to use and
    that is the one in XP SP2. Oh, and before that starts a religious war,
    Firefox will have just as many vulnerabilities as it gains in popularity!
    Security by obscurity is not real security, it just looses the script
    kiddies and leaves you worse off to genuine hackers.

    The fact of the matter is that WinXP will run better on a new PC and will be
    far more secure with a default install and all patches applied. Win2k can
    approach that security (not better it) with a lot of work and a different
    browser. Why would you ever suggest the latter for the OP?



    a
     
    al, Jan 30, 2005
    #28
    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.