-
Amazon Deals - ToS - Warp
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Windows beats Linux - Unix on vulnerabilities
- Thread starter powdermonkey
- Start date
- Replies 55
- Views 7,621
All new retail XP discs come with SP2 already integrated.
And those of us who bought it before that, have the option to merge SP2 into our CD - which I did.
With XP+SP2, no spyware makes its way in.
If someone is dumb enough to HATE the security center & disable the windows firewall, then well..... all I can say is, they DESERVED it.
Some ppl just cant let MS rest in peace:
If there isnt a firewall in the OS - "damn them, their OS is too insecure!"
If they do thoughtfully provide a security center & firewall - "damn them, this OS is too bloated, why dont they stick to giving only the basics" (not to speak of the anti-trust suits by browser & security companies)
And those of us who bought it before that, have the option to merge SP2 into our CD - which I did.
With XP+SP2, no spyware makes its way in.
If someone is dumb enough to HATE the security center & disable the windows firewall, then well..... all I can say is, they DESERVED it.
Some ppl just cant let MS rest in peace:
If there isnt a firewall in the OS - "damn them, their OS is too insecure!"
If they do thoughtfully provide a security center & firewall - "damn them, this OS is too bloated, why dont they stick to giving only the basics" (not to speak of the anti-trust suits by browser & security companies)
what firewall are you speaking of? A stupid IPSec firewall ( which is far from being a real firewall )?? It interferes with the system so much that it makes networking virtually unusable. I mean was there any logic to limit the no. of outgoing connections to 100? Not to mention the blocked ports. Today itself we had trouble networking 4 Win XP SP2 PCs for a LAN gaming contest. We had turned off the firewall. Removed ALL IPSec rules AND turned off IPSec service and still the systems couldn't ping each other. Let me tell you clearly that I have used several Windows XP + SP2 systems ( personally have a laptop installed with that crap ) and they are completely useless. People have had to hack their way through SP2 to make their systems work properly. The incessant popup warnings drive me crazy. Norton AV, M$ Antispyware, Adaware, Spybot S&D, CWShredder, Hijackthis and several other nonsensical softwares which bring my perfectly usable system to a crawl. I am a person who enjoys his freedom. I hate to be told what I am supposed to do and NOT do ESPECIALLY by a freakin' computer. *I* tell the computer what its supposed to do and not the other way round. No thanks. I prefer to use Linux.
[/quote]Originally posted by max@Feb 1 2006, 08:45 PM
what firewall are you speaking of? A stupid IPSec firewall ( which is far from being a real firewall )??
[snapback]41062[/snapback]
Maybe you shaould read about IPSec]I mean was there any logic to limit the no. of outgoing connections to 100?
[snapback]41062[/snapback][/quote]
[/b][/quote]
Yes thats a stupid decision. Torrents and other P2P programs need lots of TCP connections.
[/quote]Originally posted by max@Feb 1 2006, 08:45 PM
Not to mention the blocked ports. Today itself we had trouble networking 4 Win XP SP2 PCs for a LAN gaming contest. We had turned off the firewall. Removed ALL IPSec rules AND turned off IPSec service and still the systems couldn't ping each other.
[snapback]41062[/snapback]
Something is wrong with your setup. I have turned firewall off (it on, on the router) PC and Laptop can talk to each other without any prob.
Originally posted by netfreak+Feb 1 2006, 11:10 PM-->Maybe you shaould read about IPSec]Yes thats a stupid decision. Torrents and other P2P programs need lots of TCP connections.[/b]
umm...not just p2p programs but there are several other programs which would want to use multiple TCP connections.
umm...not just p2p programs but there are several other programs which would want to use multiple TCP connections.
All of the arguments used above, are in danger of being demolished....
Well, you'd have as much trouble (or ease) networking linux too. And if you did not, that means you left your linux box insecure....
You should show that article to the M$ n00bs who call their firewall - IPSec.[/b]
Its NOT ipsec, and whatever noobs say is not something for you to care about - the official stance has no link with what noobs say, right?
And anyways, going by what noobs say, is a poor indicator of the usage base of an app. I've seen hundreds of dumba$$es forcing me to try out firefox once and then ill love it, blah-blah. They cant digest it when I say I've known about ff since its inception & using it where relevant, & when I mention mozilla suite, they dont even have any idea of the old suite that existed since much longer ago, and they say "forget that old browser u were using, just give ff a try" - how dumb, they dont even know the history of their beloved browser, they'll just keep jumping to the dumbest app existing around! (moz suite was the DADDY of firefox & I loved it in its initial days when it was at beta 0.3 - year 1999 or so). I end up believing that only idiots use firefox - but thats not necessarily the case!
And Windows Firewall is pretty decent for its purpose! Like I said.....
Till windows got a basic firewall integrated, ppl kept poking a finger & saying the OS is insecure. The day the firewall DID get integrated, now they have to whine that its too much of a bother to configure firewalls, blah-blah...
It can be disabled for the noobs that love infections. And for the power-users, I pity their (OUR...) fate. The original plan was to put in a much more comprehensive firewall - but then, you'd have ZoneAlarm, Symantec, & co. whining & filing anti-trust suits.
(example: IE would have got updates much sooner if gates did not have to argue in court that its not a separate product - which in turn was forced by a cunning company called Netscape.) Cripple MS, make them unable to make changes to their products (using flimsy law-suits lying them up for decades), and then say they aren't updating products? How much more under the belt tactics are allowed before Netscape could get called an a$$hole? But still everyone supported netscape cuz they were the underdog & the public did not know the truth. The "easy user experience" that you call windows to be, would be nowhere without IE!
I wonder why they dont just tell the detractors to shove a finger up someplace nice, & integrate all the software & improve it, in just the way they want.
Run as a normal user & THEN try complaining to me that windows attracts spyware? I have no sympathy for those who use the admin-privileged accounts for things that do not need it & then face problems. Anyways dear dear linux encourages non-root usage as well, just that the windows users are too dumb to heed the instructions to NOT run as admin by default. So tell me, if users are dumb, is it the OS's fault? Seriously?
Frankly, when I see a million home users with pirated winXP, but still acting as if they've been deprived of something, I feel like MS should tighten activation even more & raise prices such that only corporates can afford it, to stop the incessant whining.
I mean, a guy goes & gets an XP disc from local market for 50 rupees. And he installs it on his machine & uses that OS for absulutely every damn thing. Of his own choice too - no one told him he HAS to use windows or that someone restricted him from using an alternative. And then he'll complain windows limits choice. Wow! 🙂
And he'll be too lazy to apply the updates that MS makes available regularly, with a lot of effort from their end. And he'll still complain about a particular bug, TWO YEARS after a hotfix was released for the same, & the latest SP even contains it. Again, wow.... just wow.
😕
was there any logic to limit the no. of outgoing connections to 100?[/b]
Hmm, you have ANY idea what you're talking about?
SP2 introduces a revamped TCP/IP stack, which among other things, limits the max number of half-open TCP connections to 10, at any given point of time. For all normal users, this makes absolutely no difference. You can have a MILLION tcp connections on, at the same time. The limitation is on half-open requests. Do you know what it is, d'you get the difference?
And well, the only ppl who need more than 10 half-open connections at a time, are P2P users who connect to hundreds of peers at a time - that's admittedly a small geek population who can anyway make the customizations they want & still be protected. (give me an example - which other non-P2P apps needs more than 10 half-open TCP reqs?) As for the general ppl, the SP2 limitation is a blessing, for security. Read below:"EventID 4226 TCP/IP has reached the security limit imposed on the number of concurrent TCP connect attempts"
This is what I get from a MS-Guy when i asked him why XPSP2 slows down programs like emule which open many connections to different destinations:
"Thanks very much for responding. This new feature is one of the stack's "springboards", security features designed to proactively reduce the future threat from attacks like blaster and Sasser that typically spread by opening connections to random addresses. In fact, if this feature had already been deployed, Sasser would have taken much longer to spread.
This is new with XP SP2 and we're trying to get it right so that it does not interfere with normal system operation or performance of normal, legitimate applications, but does slow the spread of viral code. New connection attempts over the limit for half-open connections get queued and worked off at a certain (limited rate)."[/b]
Well, you'd have as much trouble (or ease) networking linux too. And if you did not, that means you left your linux box insecure....
You should show that article to the M$ n00bs who call their firewall - IPSec.[/b]
Its NOT ipsec, and whatever noobs say is not something for you to care about - the official stance has no link with what noobs say, right?
And anyways, going by what noobs say, is a poor indicator of the usage base of an app. I've seen hundreds of dumba$$es forcing me to try out firefox once and then ill love it, blah-blah. They cant digest it when I say I've known about ff since its inception & using it where relevant, & when I mention mozilla suite, they dont even have any idea of the old suite that existed since much longer ago, and they say "forget that old browser u were using, just give ff a try" - how dumb, they dont even know the history of their beloved browser, they'll just keep jumping to the dumbest app existing around! (moz suite was the DADDY of firefox & I loved it in its initial days when it was at beta 0.3 - year 1999 or so). I end up believing that only idiots use firefox - but thats not necessarily the case!
And Windows Firewall is pretty decent for its purpose! Like I said.....
Till windows got a basic firewall integrated, ppl kept poking a finger & saying the OS is insecure. The day the firewall DID get integrated, now they have to whine that its too much of a bother to configure firewalls, blah-blah...
It can be disabled for the noobs that love infections. And for the power-users, I pity their (OUR...) fate. The original plan was to put in a much more comprehensive firewall - but then, you'd have ZoneAlarm, Symantec, & co. whining & filing anti-trust suits.
(example: IE would have got updates much sooner if gates did not have to argue in court that its not a separate product - which in turn was forced by a cunning company called Netscape.) Cripple MS, make them unable to make changes to their products (using flimsy law-suits lying them up for decades), and then say they aren't updating products? How much more under the belt tactics are allowed before Netscape could get called an a$$hole? But still everyone supported netscape cuz they were the underdog & the public did not know the truth. The "easy user experience" that you call windows to be, would be nowhere without IE!
I wonder why they dont just tell the detractors to shove a finger up someplace nice, & integrate all the software & improve it, in just the way they want.
Run as a normal user & THEN try complaining to me that windows attracts spyware? I have no sympathy for those who use the admin-privileged accounts for things that do not need it & then face problems. Anyways dear dear linux encourages non-root usage as well, just that the windows users are too dumb to heed the instructions to NOT run as admin by default. So tell me, if users are dumb, is it the OS's fault? Seriously?
Frankly, when I see a million home users with pirated winXP, but still acting as if they've been deprived of something, I feel like MS should tighten activation even more & raise prices such that only corporates can afford it, to stop the incessant whining.
I mean, a guy goes & gets an XP disc from local market for 50 rupees. And he installs it on his machine & uses that OS for absulutely every damn thing. Of his own choice too - no one told him he HAS to use windows or that someone restricted him from using an alternative. And then he'll complain windows limits choice. Wow! 🙂
And he'll be too lazy to apply the updates that MS makes available regularly, with a lot of effort from their end. And he'll still complain about a particular bug, TWO YEARS after a hotfix was released for the same, & the latest SP even contains it. Again, wow.... just wow.
😕
was there any logic to limit the no. of outgoing connections to 100?[/b]
Hmm, you have ANY idea what you're talking about?
SP2 introduces a revamped TCP/IP stack, which among other things, limits the max number of half-open TCP connections to 10, at any given point of time. For all normal users, this makes absolutely no difference. You can have a MILLION tcp connections on, at the same time. The limitation is on half-open requests. Do you know what it is, d'you get the difference?
And well, the only ppl who need more than 10 half-open connections at a time, are P2P users who connect to hundreds of peers at a time - that's admittedly a small geek population who can anyway make the customizations they want & still be protected. (give me an example - which other non-P2P apps needs more than 10 half-open TCP reqs?) As for the general ppl, the SP2 limitation is a blessing, for security. Read below:"EventID 4226 TCP/IP has reached the security limit imposed on the number of concurrent TCP connect attempts"
This is what I get from a MS-Guy when i asked him why XPSP2 slows down programs like emule which open many connections to different destinations:
"Thanks very much for responding. This new feature is one of the stack's "springboards", security features designed to proactively reduce the future threat from attacks like blaster and Sasser that typically spread by opening connections to random addresses. In fact, if this feature had already been deployed, Sasser would have taken much longer to spread.
This is new with XP SP2 and we're trying to get it right so that it does not interfere with normal system operation or performance of normal, legitimate applications, but does slow the spread of viral code. New connection attempts over the limit for half-open connections get queued and worked off at a certain (limited rate)."[/b]
As said above ipsec is not a complete firewall but its an addon for enterprise people having ability to do lot of things enev m$ never said that its a firewall distributed with their os but it can be used as a firewall to some extent .And the half open connection limit restriction was fairly justified bcoz that really increases the time required by a worm to spread itself on internet and other networks and also 10 half open limit is not for whole os , its 10 half open per port so it doesnt really break down ur p2p apps but they take some more time to connect to sources ( not to mention that it does affected some port scanners a bit but thats not a normal users daily work ) .
The Immortal Hart
Newbie
- Messages
- 1
- Location
- NA
Hey does any1 knows how to connect internet using mtnl triband on red hat linux 9.Max can u plzzzz help me with this.