Win98 now more secure than WinXP?

[Steve]

The last few major attacks have not affected Win98 machines, maybe for
the same reason that hackers don't spend time attacking Macs, since
the installed base is so much lower? Is it possible to make a case
that Win98 might therefore actually be a safer platform than WinXP, in
that it's less likely to suffer these kinds of attacks?

 

[Mike]

No hackers are just devoting 98% more of there time to XP than 98

 

[Emily]

Yes, for the same reason that rural folk have less risk
from terrorist attacks than city dwellers. They are no
more impervious to harm, but the odds are more in their
favor.

 

[jazz]

I would say fundamentally no. but in reality yes.

the windows xp and 2000/nt platform offers more security features that
win95/98 cannot reproduce natively. that being said there are more serious
security risk in the xp/nt platform than there is in win 95/98 (more targets
with more opportunity)

if you were to take the same security precautions with the xp as you do in
windows 98 the difference is relatively small. a good, upto date firewall
(and not that damn built in xp firewall, that's a joke) and virus scanner
goes along ways with avoiding any of the recent exploits. also windows chose
to leave some services on that aren't available in win98, they caution that
they shouldn't be ran on a open network (the internet) but chose to have
them started by default on software they know very well is going to be
placed in that situation.

in essence yes win98 is more secure than xp, because of the lack of features
in 98 compared to xp, the lack of foresight (or knowledge) on Microsoft's
development teams potentially leaving certain holes open due to sloppy
programming (or being rushed to complete it witch is more likely the
situation) and xp is a bigger target because you can do more out of the box
with it. granted most home users won't notice most of these features as they
are very transparent to the end user and how they interact.

but what do you expect when everything is a secret at Microsoft. there is
little opportunity for peer review of their products and when it does happen
Microsoft is slow to fix most of what it finds. this leave holes open to be
discovered by lessthan honorable people. usually then Microsoft is quick to
fix them. with the newness of xp and the increased potential functionality
this is an obvious target.

if you followed the news from the recent vulnerabilities the virus'
associated with them had a catch fraze something like why don't you fix your
stuff Billy. this seems to me like it is the attackers rude way of saying
we've known about these holes for too long. sometimes it is the only way for
these holes to be fixed. I remember one flaw with the help center that
Microsoft went over 11 weeks before patching because they wanted to make
sure it was included into a service pack the defeated some of the techniques
that pirates were using to steal their software. this was soon after
released in a regular patch only after the outcry of it professionals that
couldn't use the service pack because it broke certain programs and
functionality they were taking advantage of.

my conclusion to these events. get used to it. it seems like people have the
need and desire to baste Microsoft for whatever reason and will attack their
flagship in anyway possible or feel it is necessary for security to be a
priority and attempt to force Microsoft into doing more than they appear to
be. also these same people that have a grudge against Microsoft might have
the impression that they can slow down Microsoft sales on these product by
creating a layer of fud (fear uncertainty and doubt) around the newer
products, whether rite or wrong it would compel users to stick with older
technology that has most of these flaws fixed already. buy a firewall and
antivirus program and update often. then use any os that fit your needs

 

[Mike D]

I continue to be amazed that the shift key gets so little
use in these groups. How is it that someone can go
through a (long) message without capitalizing anything
except Microsoft? And then never missing a capital M.

 

[Ron Martell]

The last few major attacks have not affected Win98 machines, maybe for
the same reason that hackers don't spend time attacking Macs, since
the installed base is so much lower? Is it possible to make a case
that Win98 might therefore actually be a safer platform than WinXP, in
that it's less likely to suffer these kinds of attacks?

Let's put it this way.

Windows 98 is not getting shot at as much as Windows XP is.

However Windows 98 is a much more vulnerable target that Windows XP
and therefore there is a greater likelihood that any given shot will
be successful in causing damage.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."