A picture says it all!

[Virus Guy]

Dustin wrote:

> >> Root kits are the real danger.
> >
> > For for a system running Windows 98.
>
> No.

I actually meant to say no. I meant to say:

Not for a system running Windows 98.

> Win9x systems have many more dangers to contend with.

No they don't.

As someone who has been running win-98 on several systems for the past
12 years, I can say that it is invulnerable to web-based threats over
that time-frame - unlike win-NT based machines that are constantly
getting ****ed over by hackers because NT (which includes
2k/xp/the-abortion-known-as-vista/7) is so poorly designed to be an
internet-facing OS.

Just look at what happened with XP between 2002 and 2006.

You were a fool to be surfing the web with XP during those years.
Meanwhile exploit attempts just bounced off win-98 systems during those
years.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

In alt.privacy.spyware, Virus Guy wrote:

> Dustin wrote:
> [attributes missing]
> I actually meant to say no. I meant to say:
>
> Not for a system running Windows 98.
>
>> Win9x systems have many more dangers to contend with.
>
> No they don't.
>
> As someone who has been running win-98 on several systems for the past
> 12 years,

<snip crap>

You keep espousing this prehistoric software. What is everyone supposed to
do when those ooooold boxes die due to hardware failure? Or the owner
wants some speed? Or to use a modern word processor? Buy a new i7 and try
to find drivers for Win98? Will you write them?

You are: E pluribus unum. You are certainly allowed the choice for *you*
to use Win98, but to be advising others to do so is ludicrous.

--
-bts
-"My God, Man. A Millennium Has Passed."

[The Daring Dufas]

On 7/12/2012 6:10 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> In alt.privacy.spyware, Virus Guy wrote:
>
>> Dustin wrote:
>> [attributes missing]
>> I actually meant to say no. I meant to say:
>>
>> Not for a system running Windows 98.
>>
>>> Win9x systems have many more dangers to contend with.
>>
>> No they don't.
>>
>> As someone who has been running win-98 on several systems for the past
>> 12 years,
>
> <snip crap>
>
> You keep espousing this prehistoric software. What is everyone supposed to
> do when those ooooold boxes die due to hardware failure? Or the owner
> wants some speed? Or to use a modern word processor? Buy a new i7 and try
> to find drivers for Win98? Will you write them?
>
> You are: E pluribus unum. You are certainly allowed the choice for *you*
> to use Win98, but to be advising others to do so is ludicrous.
>

Just a few years ago I had some customers who were still running DOS.
They kept it because it just worked, it just worked for their
application without any fuss or drama. I had to keep old boxes in my
warehouse and cruse dumpsters to find stuff it would run on to repair
their systems. O_o

TDD

[Dustin]

Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4FFF54BA.F03B0172@Guy.com:

> I actually meant to say no. I meant to say:
>
> Not for a system running Windows 98.

Technically, they don't exist for NT either. There is no user root on
NT. It's an abused term for a stealthy trojan package.

> No they don't.

Yes, yes they do. You can't run the latest IE browser(s). Your system
depends on IE for it's html rendering internally; even if you use
firefox and/or chrome, some win98 features will still be IE specific.

Which means, vulnerable as ****. If you use a 3rd party tool to force
IE's complete removal from Win9x, you will break some features
(hahaha).

You have no file permissions, no real user permissions. If an
application has a serious crash, it'll take the entire machine down
with it. If the application wants to diddle another apps memory space,
it has free reign to do so.

If you run more than 45 days (I think it is) continous, you will blue
screen and hard crash out. This is a known fact with win9x machines.
memory management.

> As someone who has been running win-98 on several systems for the
> past 12 years, I can say that it is invulnerable to web-based threats
> over that time-frame - unlike win-NT based machines that are
> constantly getting ****ed over by hackers because NT (which includes
> 2k/xp/the-abortion-known-as-vista/7) is so poorly designed to be an
> internet-facing OS.

I don't care how long you've been pointing and clicking things. As
well, let's be honest, that's what you do. You don't actually code or
anything so you're not in a good position to tell us how secure win9x
is or isn't.

Your win9x system is just as vulnerable to my old viruses as it was the
day I released them. Seriously.

> Just look at what happened with XP between 2002 and 2006.

Would you like to be a little more specific? Many things were happening
in those years.

> You were a fool to be surfing the web with XP during those years.
> Meanwhile exploit attempts just bounced off win-98 systems during
> those years.

Just bounced off? If they were IE specific and didn't download NT
specific files, they weren't bouncing off anywhere.

I've ran XP during those years and never had any issues. I'm not a
moronic twit tho, so that might have had something to do with it.

Most of the present day malware would run fine on win9x, if it didn't
check to see what OS you were running. Yep, most of the fakeAV programs
will run under win9x; so long as they aren't checking OS version and
shutting down if they don't see NT. Aside from mimicking certain GUI
aspects of XP, win9x has no issue supporting the majority of them. It's
when the malware wants to do users, extra functionality, etc.. that
win9x can't support it; due to it being inferior technology.

It still supports PE32bit executables, native. Which means, unless the
app/malware is specific for NT and ONLY NT, your box will run it just
fine.



--
The Lone Ranger and Tonto follow some bandits into the desert but lose
them. On the way back they're surrounded by 1500 Apaches. Lone
Ranger:Looks like we've got a fight on our hands, Tonto. Tonto: What do
you mean "we", white man?

[Hot-Text]

"G. Morgan" <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote in message news:j8iuv7pihvf9sg4t6lljnsvl57jct0v08m@Osama-is-dead.net...
> Hot-Text wrote:
>
>>Now (#2 router) IP and (#3 router) IP's can be..
>>In 300.300.300.1 to 355.355.355.355
>
> You sure about that?
>

Yes by setup up of first router you can pass IP Address 255.255.255.255..

The Routers is Assigned by DHCP of the first Router..

Router #2
IP Address 300.0.0.1
Subnet Mask 225.225.225.225
Default Gateway 192.668.0.1

Router #3
IP Address 300.0.0.11
Subnet Mask 225.225.225.225
Default Gateway 192.668.0.1

[Aardvark]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:40:43 +0000, Hot-Text wrote:

> "G. Morgan" <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote in message
> news:j8iuv7pihvf9sg4t6lljnsvl57jct0v08m@Osama-is-dead.net...
>> Hot-Text wrote:
>>
>>>Now (#2 router) IP and (#3 router) IP's can be..
>>>In 300.300.300.1 to 355.355.355.355
>>
>> You sure about that?
>>
>>
> Yes by setup up of first router you can pass IP Address
> 255.255.255.255..
>
> The Routers is Assigned by DHCP of the first Router..
>
> Router #2 IP Address 300.0.0.1 Subnet Mask 225.225.225.225 Default
> Gateway 192.668.0.1
>
> Router #3 IP Address 300.0.0.11 Subnet Mask 225.225.225.225 Default
> Gateway 192.668.0.1

LOL.



--
You do not have to say anything, but it may harm
your defence if you do not mention when questioned
something which you later reply on in court. Anything
you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand?

[Hot-Text]

"Dustin" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message news:XnsA08EBB69FF6D2HHI2948AJD832@no...
> Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4FFECB79.8D1DD17@Guy.com:
>
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> Got Root?
>>>
>>> Root kits are the real danger.
>>
>> For for a system running Windows 98.
>
> No. Win9x systems have many more dangers to contend with. No real concept
> of security, no file permissions. a single file infector can make the
> whole system it's ***** in no time.
>
> Only an absolute ****ing moron would run windows98 and claim it has
> security superior to that of more modern Oses. It doesnt, it never has.
>
> Demonstrate more stupidity, **** for brains.
>

Windows 98 have good security if you do not use it for Browser or E-Mail..

[FrozenNorth]

On 7/12/12 8:33 PM, Hot-Text wrote:
> "Dustin" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:XnsA08EBB69FF6D2HHI2948AJD832@no...
>> Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4FFECB79.8D1DD17@Guy.com:
>>
>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>
>>>> Got Root?
>>>>
>>>> Root kits are the real danger.
>>>
>>> For for a system running Windows 98.
>>
>> No. Win9x systems have many more dangers to contend with. No real
>> concept of security, no file permissions. a single file infector can
>> make the whole system it's ***** in no time.
>>
>> Only an absolute ****ing moron would run windows98 and claim it has
>> security superior to that of more modern Oses. It doesnt, it never has.
>>
>> Demonstrate more stupidity, **** for brains.
>>
>
> Windows 98 have good security if you do not use it for Browser or E-Mail..
>
and you leave it unplugged.

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

[Hot-Text]

"FrozenNorth" <frozenNorth123@gm.nospam.ail.com> wrote in message news:jto6da$6fg$1@dont-email.me...
> On 7/12/12 8:33 PM, Hot-Text wrote:
>> "Dustin" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:XnsA08EBB69FF6D2HHI2948AJD832@no...
>>> Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4FFECB79.8D1DD17@Guy.com:
>>>
>>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Got Root?
>>>>>
>>>>> Root kits are the real danger.
>>>>
>>>> For for a system running Windows 98.
>>>
>>> No. Win9x systems have many more dangers to contend with. No real
>>> concept of security, no file permissions. a single file infector can
>>> make the whole system it's ***** in no time.
>>>
>>> Only an absolute ****ing moron would run windows98 and claim it has
>>> security superior to that of more modern Oses. It doesnt, it never has.
>>>
>>> Demonstrate more stupidity, **** for brains.
>>>
>>
>> Windows 98 have good security if you do not use it for Browser or E-Mail..
>>
> and you leave it unplugged.
>

No it a web-server..
I just do not use the Browser or E-Mail on it,
for 4 years now..

For if you install a windows 98,
you will not be able to update it not more,
Same for WinME, Win95..
for they not good for Browser or E-Mail..


Win98 & WinME can be made security as web-server...

[Davo]

Virus Guy wrote:

> You were a fool to be surfing the web with XP during those years.

Why do you say that, VG?

I'm not saying you are wrong, though! I bought and installed a retail
copy of XP Home in 2002 and kept it updated always. I was (I thought!)
very careful yet in 2005 someone convinced PayPal to pay them £245 for a
mobile phone which they claimed I had bought from eBay - I had *not*
done so! <rolls eyes>