Will XP sp2 fix the security issues in the NT code?

[ArtWilder]

I contacted Microsoft on Monday and let them know they need to make their
NT products more secure. I gave customer service the web page of eeye.com
that is below.
http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.html
Next, I spent a long time chatting with tech support after being assigned a
case number. Finally, I contacted the folks at eeye.com and found out they
do check the current 9x products as well for security glitches. They have
yet to find a recent product security glitch with Microsoft Windows 98
Second Edition! The eeye tech guy was amusing on the telephone because he
said that Microsoft has complained to them that they are finding too many
security glitches in the NT (Not There and Not New Technology Inferior if
you ask me) source code. (LOL) Imagine the chaos that would happen if
hackers found these vulnerabilities before this security company did. I
think that Microsoft should be extremely grateful to have this company
around that searches their products and tries to find weaknesses with them.
The 98SE operating system was released in 1999 and although it is now
dated ---- it was in my opinion produced during the height of the software
age in terms of new discoveries and exciting new technologies. Sure, you
need third party programs to make the operating system secure --- so
what --- it does not have the glaring software vulnerabilities that the NT
code continues to have. Yeah, I know I am beating this topic to death but I
wanted to let everyone know that I am making my voice known to the proper
channels. If this cannot be resolved with the software companies then the
government may be the next step. All comments are welcome since XP
Professional is the latest software product and it still has too many
security glitches in my opinion. Fortunately, for us 98, 98SE and ME will
be supported by critical updates through the Windows Update site until at
least 30 June 2006. So you see, Richard and others that it is imperative
that I have two operating systems so that when one is possibly hacked into
then I still have the other. Oh and by the way, I have decided to do my
real important and critical research on a PC that is not connected to the
Internet to prevent all the associated problems that one can have on-line.
Take care and I will be a regular again soon if anyone can stand to have me
around. LOL

[ArtWilder]

By the way for the laymen
NT code refers to NT 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.
9x refers to current 9x supported products 98, 98SE and ME.

"ArtWilder" > wrote in message
news:Ybexc.26123$My6.1721@fed1read05...
> I contacted Microsoft on Monday and let them know they need to make
their
> NT products more secure. I gave customer service the web page of eeye.com
> that is below.
> http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.html
> Next, I spent a long time chatting with tech support after being assigned
a
> case number. Finally, I contacted the folks at eeye.com and found out
they
> do check the current 9x products as well for security glitches. They have
> yet to find a recent product security glitch with Microsoft Windows 98
> Second Edition! The eeye tech guy was amusing on the telephone because he
> said that Microsoft has complained to them that they are finding too many
> security glitches in the NT (Not There and Not New Technology Inferior if
> you ask me) source code. (LOL) Imagine the chaos that would happen if
> hackers found these vulnerabilities before this security company did. I
> think that Microsoft should be extremely grateful to have this company
> around that searches their products and tries to find weaknesses with
them.
> The 98SE operating system was released in 1999 and although it is now
> dated ---- it was in my opinion produced during the height of the software
> age in terms of new discoveries and exciting new technologies. Sure, you
> need third party programs to make the operating system secure --- so
> what --- it does not have the glaring software vulnerabilities that the NT
> code continues to have. Yeah, I know I am beating this topic to death but
I
> wanted to let everyone know that I am making my voice known to the proper
> channels. If this cannot be resolved with the software companies then the
> government may be the next step. All comments are welcome since XP
> Professional is the latest software product and it still has too many
> security glitches in my opinion. Fortunately, for us 98, 98SE and ME will
> be supported by critical updates through the Windows Update site until at
> least 30 June 2006. So you see, Richard and others that it is imperative
> that I have two operating systems so that when one is possibly hacked into
> then I still have the other. Oh and by the way, I have decided to do my
> real important and critical research on a PC that is not connected to the
> Internet to prevent all the associated problems that one can have on-line.
> Take care and I will be a regular again soon if anyone can stand to have
me
> around. LOL
>
>

[Mostly Me (MM)]

ArtWilder wrote:
>Finally, I contacted the folks at eeye.com and found out they
> do check the current 9x products as well for security glitches. They have
> yet to find a recent product security glitch with Microsoft Windows 98
> Second Edition!

I took my horse buggy to the mechanic and he didn't find a single thing
wrong with the transmission!

> The eeye tech guy was amusing on the telephone because he
> said that Microsoft has complained to them that they are finding too many
> security glitches in the NT (Not There and Not New Technology Inferior if
> you ask me) source code. (LOL) Imagine the chaos that would happen if
> hackers found these vulnerabilities before this security company did. I
> think that Microsoft should be extremely grateful to have this company
> around that searches their products and tries to find weaknesses with them.
> The 98SE operating system was released in 1999 and although it is now
> dated ---- it was in my opinion produced during the height of the software
> age in terms of new discoveries and exciting new technologies.

Yikes. I hope that wasn't the height of new discoveries. Did you know
that the U.S. patent office was once closed because everything that
could be invented was?

> Sure, you
> need third party programs to make the operating system secure --- so
> what --- it does not have the glaring software vulnerabilities that the NT
> code continues to have.

I forget the number, but it seems to me I saw recently that there are
millions of XP boxes out there, I would think theses glaring
vulnerabilities would have brought it to its knees by now. Perhaps you
just need third party programs to make it secure- "so what". (Sound
familiar?)

In additon, I'm betting you're not running the 98SE out of the box,
without the seemingly countless updates that have been released since
its inception.

This NG is replete with 98SE boxes that have been "hacked" by spyware,
viruses and adware. I think education of users is a bigger problem, or
rather the lack of education. Certainly MS can shoulder some of the
blame for that, but so can the PC makers who ship these things out
"ready to go", just plug it in and start surfing the web.


> Yeah, I know I am beating this topic to death but I
> wanted to let everyone know that I am making my voice known to the proper
> channels. If this cannot be resolved with the software companies then the
> government may be the next step. All comments are welcome since XP
> Professional is the latest software product and it still has too many
> security glitches in my opinion.

It's good to know you are making your voice heard at the "proper
channels", but why beat up this NG(98) with complaints about XP? Those
using this NG have 98! You're preaching to the choir. And those in the
XP group need help with problems, not a simple "just go back to Win98".
I have even seen people post a question about upgrading in here and you
go to great lengths to beg them to stick with 98 at all costs. I do
understand that they need to review their hardware specs before
upgrading, but telling someone with an ancient 98FE box to spend about
$100 (US) to upgrade to SE just in case they might buy a USB 2.0 device
is not sound, IMO. They would be better off saving the $100 and putting
it towards new system. Not that it would be a steadfast rule to follow,
but it should be a suggestion at least.

> Fortunately, for us 98, 98SE and ME will
> be supported by critical updates through the Windows Update site until at
> least 30 June 2006.

Well, at least those MS deems critical for 98. Amazingly, the last few
haven't been categorized as "critical".

> So you see, Richard and others that it is imperative
> that I have two operating systems so that when one is possibly hacked into
> then I still have the other. Oh and by the way, I have decided to do my
> real important and critical research on a PC that is not connected to the
> Internet to prevent all the associated problems that one can have on-line.

Don't forget to draw the blinds-- someone may be watching you through
the window with a telescope-LOL.

> Take care and I will be a regular again soon if anyone can stand to have me
> around. LOL
>

Please do continue to contribute, maybe just ease up on the XP bashing a
little. Don't get me wrong, I neither love nor hate XP or 98. In fact, I
still primarily use 98 for a variety of reasons. Some financial, some
practical and some just for convenience and nostalgia. I will be buying
a laptop soon, I desperately need one, but it will have XP on it. Also,
I have access to XP in the next room, so the urgency to upgrade my
desktop isn't there. I have entertained the idea of a dual boot on my
tower but came to the conclusion that if I truly need access to 2
operating systems at once then I should just build another tower and
network it-- I have open ports on the router. Besides, I have some
number crunching programs I can let run 24/7 on the 98 box and still
have access to a functional computer. Not to mention I love building
computers and want to build one specifically designed to take advantage
of the "latest" technology, sans the budgetary concerns that are there
when building one for somebody else.

Looking forward to more posts from you. Take care.

mm

[ArtWilder]

Thanks for your input, MM. I will let you know how everything goes.
Someone has to keep companies accountable in this day and age --- Remember
Lucent, Enron, MCI, etc. LOL :> Okay and back to Windows 98(FE) and 98(SE)
Any suggestion on a good technical book about dual-booting 98SE and XP Pro.
for a newbie techie who plans to continue to increase his knowledge -- :>
Have a nice evening. I appreciate your response.

"Mostly Me (MM)" > wrote in message
...
> ArtWilder wrote:
> >Finally, I contacted the folks at eeye.com and found out they
> > do check the current 9x products as well for security glitches. They
have
> > yet to find a recent product security glitch with Microsoft Windows 98
> > Second Edition!
>
> I took my horse buggy to the mechanic and he didn't find a single thing
> wrong with the transmission!
>
> > The eeye tech guy was amusing on the telephone because he
> > said that Microsoft has complained to them that they are finding too
many
> > security glitches in the NT (Not There and Not New Technology Inferior
if
> > you ask me) source code. (LOL) Imagine the chaos that would happen if
> > hackers found these vulnerabilities before this security company did. I
> > think that Microsoft should be extremely grateful to have this company
> > around that searches their products and tries to find weaknesses with
them.
> > The 98SE operating system was released in 1999 and although it is now
> > dated ---- it was in my opinion produced during the height of the
software
> > age in terms of new discoveries and exciting new technologies.
>
> Yikes. I hope that wasn't the height of new discoveries. Did you know
> that the U.S. patent office was once closed because everything that
> could be invented was?
>
> > Sure, you
> > need third party programs to make the operating system secure --- so
> > what --- it does not have the glaring software vulnerabilities that the
NT
> > code continues to have.
>
> I forget the number, but it seems to me I saw recently that there are
> millions of XP boxes out there, I would think theses glaring
> vulnerabilities would have brought it to its knees by now. Perhaps you
> just need third party programs to make it secure- "so what". (Sound
> familiar?)
>
> In additon, I'm betting you're not running the 98SE out of the box,
> without the seemingly countless updates that have been released since
> its inception.
>
> This NG is replete with 98SE boxes that have been "hacked" by spyware,
> viruses and adware. I think education of users is a bigger problem, or
> rather the lack of education. Certainly MS can shoulder some of the
> blame for that, but so can the PC makers who ship these things out
> "ready to go", just plug it in and start surfing the web.
>
>
> > Yeah, I know I am beating this topic to death but I
> > wanted to let everyone know that I am making my voice known to the
proper
> > channels. If this cannot be resolved with the software companies then
the
> > government may be the next step. All comments are welcome since XP
> > Professional is the latest software product and it still has too many
> > security glitches in my opinion.
>
> It's good to know you are making your voice heard at the "proper
> channels", but why beat up this NG(98) with complaints about XP? Those
> using this NG have 98! You're preaching to the choir. And those in the
> XP group need help with problems, not a simple "just go back to Win98".
> I have even seen people post a question about upgrading in here and you
> go to great lengths to beg them to stick with 98 at all costs. I do
> understand that they need to review their hardware specs before
> upgrading, but telling someone with an ancient 98FE box to spend about
> $100 (US) to upgrade to SE just in case they might buy a USB 2.0 device
> is not sound, IMO. They would be better off saving the $100 and putting
> it towards new system. Not that it would be a steadfast rule to follow,
> but it should be a suggestion at least.
>
> > Fortunately, for us 98, 98SE and ME will
> > be supported by critical updates through the Windows Update site until
at
> > least 30 June 2006.
>
> Well, at least those MS deems critical for 98. Amazingly, the last few
> haven't been categorized as "critical".
>
> > So you see, Richard and others that it is imperative
> > that I have two operating systems so that when one is possibly hacked
into
> > then I still have the other. Oh and by the way, I have decided to do my
> > real important and critical research on a PC that is not connected to
the
> > Internet to prevent all the associated problems that one can have
on-line.
>
> Don't forget to draw the blinds-- someone may be watching you through
> the window with a telescope-LOL.
>
> > Take care and I will be a regular again soon if anyone can stand to have
me
> > around. LOL
> >
>
> Please do continue to contribute, maybe just ease up on the XP bashing a
> little. Don't get me wrong, I neither love nor hate XP or 98. In fact, I
> still primarily use 98 for a variety of reasons. Some financial, some
> practical and some just for convenience and nostalgia. I will be buying
> a laptop soon, I desperately need one, but it will have XP on it. Also,
> I have access to XP in the next room, so the urgency to upgrade my
> desktop isn't there. I have entertained the idea of a dual boot on my
> tower but came to the conclusion that if I truly need access to 2
> operating systems at once then I should just build another tower and
> network it-- I have open ports on the router. Besides, I have some
> number crunching programs I can let run 24/7 on the 98 box and still
> have access to a functional computer. Not to mention I love building
> computers and want to build one specifically designed to take advantage
> of the "latest" technology, sans the budgetary concerns that are there
> when building one for somebody else.
>
> Looking forward to more posts from you. Take care.
>
> mm
>

[Ron Martell]

"ArtWilder" > wrote:

> I contacted Microsoft on Monday and let them know they need to make their
>NT products more secure.

<snip>

> Fortunately, for us 98, 98SE and ME will
>be supported by critical updates through the Windows Update site until at
>least 30 June 2006.


You have it backwards Art.

Windows XP is inherently more secure (and more stable) than any
Windows 9x version could ever hope to be, even if Microsoft were to
make a major effort to improve 9x (which they won't do).


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."

[ArtWilder]

Okay but as the latest and greatest XP Professional and Home will take the
most attacks from hackers and my two security problems on the NT code are
still there and hackers will eventually find them and then everyone who uses
the NT code will suffer Unless Microsoft fixes these critical security flaws
first. See:

http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.html

http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20031007.html (at least 91 million
XP machines are vulnerable)

http://eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20040318.html (at least 300 million
NT source code based computers are vulnerable)

Do you still see NT as secure even though I grant you this that it may be
more secure than 9x?


"Ron Martell" > wrote in message
...
> "ArtWilder" > wrote:
>
> > I contacted Microsoft on Monday and let them know they need to make
their
> >NT products more secure.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Fortunately, for us 98, 98SE and ME will
> >be supported by critical updates through the Windows Update site until at
> >least 30 June 2006.
>
>
> You have it backwards Art.
>
> Windows XP is inherently more secure (and more stable) than any
> Windows 9x version could ever hope to be, even if Microsoft were to
> make a major effort to improve 9x (which they won't do).
>
>
> 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."