Inline:
Not actually true at the moment, as there is *no* attack vector found
for Win9x at this time. Attempts to make the current attacks work in
Win9x have all failed...they simply rely upon features not available
in Win9x. Which is not to say that someone might not pursue that in
the future, but it appears to be more trouble than it's worth to
exploit this in 9x.
However, Windows 98 does contain the libraries and doesn't protect against
buffer overrun.
Certainly, this will always be true for all operating systems, but to
think that hardware improvements won't soon be matched by new malware
and exploit avenues, is naive. To expect people (and even small
businesses) to replace their hardware when they may have already doen
so just a few months ago, is hardly realistic.
This is your point I wanted to answer most. The newer the system the easier
it is to upgrade. If the computer is just a few months old, say a relatively
recent Sempron or Celeron, then it's just the price of a new Sempron and
then voila, just pop the old one out and pop the EVP Sempron in. Instance
buffer overflow protection. So a business that just spent on newer machines
has only the cost of the CPUs .. which if it does stem off an attack could
be well worth the price.
It's the older machines that will be pricier because it will mean new CPU
mobo RAM etc. to get EVP and DEP.
Ever look at a list of exploits for Windows ?? One buffer overflow exploit
after another .. buffer overflow buffer overflow buffer overflow time and
time again. Eliminating that danger really delievers a one two punch against
the criminals and terrorists. It makes it much much harder for them to make
any headway against responsible computer operators.
Certainly. Understood. there is still debate going on here as to
exactly what the possibilities of this vulnerability are, for
Win9x.....regardless of whether or not it is Critical under
Microsoft's definition.
That's fine....I was pretty much asking in terms of future threads,
and others you may or may not have started since that may be OT for
the group. Certainly, I would crosspost in my reply to you in this
one, as it is already so far along and to not crosspost would serve
no purpose at this point.
No. Besides, even when there's the odd cross-post, these Microsoft groups
tend to be relatively civil. It's not like I did it to annoy anyone. And ,
yes I really did think it was applicable to Windows 98 at the time.
Did I say certainly enough, BTW? ;-)
You are a good poster. I enjoy the convesations engaged in on newsgroups.
For what it's worth, I will be installing Windows 98 S.E. on a Sempron this
today. I want to discuss the term 'registry crud' with someone.