viruses no loner work under win2k?

[rc5]

I've been using win2k for almost 2 years and hardly ever seen any virus, except the word virus.

Is win2k with NTFS a no-no for virus?

 

[igiveup]

Well why don't I send you one....If you think that viruses are toast under NTFS or Windows NT/2000 then you are dead wrong. *nix has a better shot out of the box defeating viruses than any windows platform. 2000 is still very much in the danger zone.

 

[fivepesos]

theres nothing special about NTFS or win2k to make it resistent to viruses. youre just getting lucky

 

[HansXP]

ooh i never had a virus under DOS, Win3.1, Win95, Win98, or Win2K. They must ALL be immune!!

 

[waytoomuchcoffee]

I have never died in the last two years either. I have seen the word "died" many times however. I guess that means I am immortal.

 

[Shudder]

Nice analogy

 

[HansXP]

haha! Nice one, waytoomuchcoffee.

 

[Patgod]

well i am immortal, but that doesnt make this any less funny.

 

[Psychoholic]

<< Is win2k with NTFS a no-no for virus? >>


Not really a &quot;no-no&quot;, but running NTFS and using a User or Power User account will help strengthen your system against attacks. Especially so if you've tightened the default permissions up some.



<< theres nothing special about NTFS or win2k to make it resistent to viruses. youre just getting lucky >>


Bzzzztt, wrong. File level security is one of the most crutial ingredients to making an operating system virus resistant.



<< *nix has a better shot out of the box defeating viruses than any windows platform. 2000 is still very much in the danger zone. >>


That's funny. You ought to be in stand-up comedy. I'm not saying that *nix cannot fend off viruses, it's just that most viruses are targeted at Windows users because they have a larger market share. If *nix had the market share Microsoft does you would see more *nix viruses than ones targeting Windows. What hacker would want to spend his time developing a virus that will hit only a fraction of the computers in the world??? W2K and NT (not 9x) are just as capable of fending off viruses as *nix, due to the file-level security on both operating systems. There will always be ways to circumvent system security, and the operating system with the bigger market share will always be the bigger target.

 

[Psychoholic]

By the way rc5, I'm actually impressed. You gave a Microsoft product praise for once!!!!

Don't do it again, I don't think I could stand the shock twice. :Q

 

[waytoomuchcoffee]

<< theres nothing special about NTFS or win2k to make it resistent to viruses. youre just getting lucky

Bzzzztt, wrong. File level security is one of the most crutial ingredients to making an operating system virus resistant.
>>




That's only if you set it up. Given his knowledge, you really think any security policies are set up? I bet he didn't even change the default &quot;Everyone&quot; permission.

Try this link for some info on how to get yours set up.

 

[Psychoholic]

True waytoomuchcoffee. I will say though that out of the box W2K is setup quite a bit more secure than NT 4.0. The permissions in the \WINNT and \Program Files folder are pretty good for most users. That is, if you formatted the system as NTFS from the beginning. A convert doesn't do that. The Everyone permission in the root should be the first elimination though.

 

[fivepesos]

<<<< << theres nothing special about NTFS or win2k to make it resistent to viruses. youre just getting lucky >>


Bzzzztt, wrong. File level security is one of the most crutial ingredients to making an operating system virus resistant.>>>>

sure file level security helps but that doesnt make windows 2000 more resisitant than other operating systems like linux or bsd (which have file level security). NTFS isnt a miraculuous cure for viruses it offers the same security as we expect from our EXT2 and ReiserFS paritions.

properely implemented, NTFS may offer a little improvement over win9x but i dont care to think about win9x thank you. win9x has been and will continue to be an open door to viruses and abuses. if youre on cable, just scan your node and see how many out of date win9x machines there are, and how long theyll last before they get sub7ed.

 

[waytoomuchcoffee]

<< if youre on cable, just scan your node and see how many out of date win9x machines there are, and how long theyll last before they get sub7ed. >>



Well, as long as you are restricting your comparison to &quot;out of date&quot; machines, don't you think you should mention bind problems with Linux?

 

[Psychoholic]

<< sure file level security helps but that doesnt make windows 2000 more resisitant than other operating systems like linux or bsd (which have file level security). NTFS isnt a miraculuous cure for viruses it offers the same security as we expect from our EXT2 and ReiserFS paritions. >>



I never said it was more resistant. Trying reading my post next time instead of going off half cocked.

I also never said it was a cure, just one of the ingredients. You can't talk about how resistant *nix is with it's file systems and then blow off NTFS.

You know what's funny you act as if NTFS is a &quot;new&quot; file system. Do a little research, it's not as green as you would have us try and believe. You mention NTFS &quot;gives the same security as we expect from EXT2 and Reiser&quot;. So are you saying that they are superior??? Do I need to remind you what file system incorporated journaling first??? Notice I say incorporated, not an add-in.

As far as viruses go I can't wait to see what happens if Linux makes it as a mainstream desktop OS. Let's see how quick it's security crumples against viruses and the like. Of course Linux still has a long way to go with software support and interoperability between organizations and until those issues are addressed Linux security is a moot point for most organizations.

 

[Psychoholic]

<< properely implemented, NTFS may offer a little improvement over win9x >>


I forgot to point this out so I could laugh at it. A little improvement.....????

 

[fivepesos]

i shouldnt post when im tired. i make no sense. post is now gone.

 

[HansXP]

Was anyone else confused by fivepesos' post?

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Well, as long as you are restricting your comparison to &quot;out of date&quot; machines, don't you think you should mention bind problems with Linux? >>



djbdns. And the BIND security problems are not just for linux. As far as mentioning add ons to an operating system, let's talk about IIS.

 

[DarkManX]

never had a virus either, 1 time I had some floopys infected with monkey virus which was easy to remove, but I never use virus scanners anymore so maybe I did get some??

 

[CTho9305]

Most &quot;hackers&quot; out there seem to be &quot;script kiddies&quot;, and they'd have a much more difficult time messing with linux's bind trouble than with security holes in outlook, etc.

 

[waytoomuchcoffee]

<< Most &quot;hackers&quot; out there seem to be &quot;script kiddies&quot;, and they'd have a much more difficult time messing with linux's bind trouble than with security holes in outlook, etc. >>



Yeah, good thing the script kiddies have never found out about the Lion worm or t0rn rootkit, or it would be, you know, easy.