Security Basics mailing list archives

RE: protect MS Windows 95/98/Me


From: "Steven A. Fletcher" <sfletcher () bcsc com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:18:09 -0500

I have to disagree.  There IS another way, and that way is to use a
piece of software, such as FoolProof, which other have mentioned.  While
I agree that Win9x is a dead-end, there are many situations where
budgets do not allow for people to upgrade to new OS's, especially when
doing so would also require new hardware.  And, installing software such
as FoolProof can help make Win9x much more secure, as long as it is
configured properly. 

It is true that Win9x is never going to be as secure as NT
4/Win2k/WinXP, but that does not mean that steps cannot be taken to at
least minimize the potential problems.

One other thing I would suggest is to have a way to image the PC's.
That way, if someone screws one up, just load the image again.  This
will save LOTS of troubleshooting time.

Just my $.02 worth......

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve McLaughlin [mailto:steve () Lan com au] 
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 4:23 AM
To: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: protect MS Windows 95/98/Me

Yes, that's a very polite way of saying it.
There is no security features in win9x OS. They are all totally unsecure
operating systems. The security features within are totally flawed in
all
ways, there is no way of securing these operating systems.

The solution is to upgrade to windows 2k or XP, using NTFS.

There is no other way.

Don't embarrass yourself wasting the organisations capital on totally
obsolete and unstable operating systems.

Consider the 9x OS Obsolete, upgrade to NT5 or 5.1. Don't bother even
looking further into securing Win9x. It is a total waste of time.

steve mclaughlin | enlite technologyR
T 1300 135 251 | F +61 (2) 9402 8586
E steve () Lan com au | W www.Lan.com.auT
(MCP, A+, Network+, Server+)
 

-----Original Message-----
From: French, Mark [mailto:Mark.French () wellington co uk] 
Sent: Thursday, 25 September 2003 2:07 AM
To: 'security-basics () securityfocus com'
Subject: RE: protect MS Windows 95/98/Me

I don't know of any software, but in this situation, my hardware of
choice
would be SCISSORS.
Cut the network cable, keyboard cable, and mouse cable.

This is probably the only way that this level of security can be
achieved in
these operating systems.

Mark

(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Reidenbach [mailto:pominciss () greendot com ph]
Sent: 24 September 2003 06:25
To: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: protect MS Windows 95/98/Me


Hi everyone!
I'm looking for a software that you can install on
MS Windows 95/98/Me Machines that won't
allow an ordinary user to install any programs or
allow any virus to infect any files.
Would anybody know what they call these programs
and where to get them? Any kind of help will be
appreciated.
-Robert-



------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed
Scanning
Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.com


________________________________________________________
The information in this message is confidential and may
be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is
unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and
may be unlawful.

The registered office of Wellington Underwriting plc is
88 Leadenhall Street, London, UK   EC3A 3BA.
________________________________________________________ 


------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----





------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Current thread: