 |
| Prev-20 | Home | Next-20 |
| Prev-20 | Home | Next-20 |
| Prev- | Prev- | Mozilla- | Mar- | Next- | Next- |
| Subject: | Re: OT Re: T-Bird can get you blacklisted |
| Group: | Mozilla-general |
| From: | Jonas P Eckerman |
| Date: | 4 Mar 2007 |
[Crosspost and Followup-To to mozilla.general since this has
nothing tp do with Thunderbird anymore...]
Ron Lopshire wrote:
> Where have you been, Andrew? The botnet problem started with WinXP in
> the Home/SOHO market.
There were botnets before Windows XP. Windows 9x/ME is *not* a
secure system.
> 1) The issue is NTFS, the kernel upon which it resides and that
What are you talning about? What do you think the filesystem has
to do with this?
The exploitable services in Windows XP has nothing to do with the
filesystem. They are/were just as exploitable on a Windows XP
system using FAT or HPFS.
> One could certainly get into
> trouble with the FAT16 and FAT32 boxes, but not nearly to the same extent.
Why do you say this? Based on what?
Do you really think that a Windows XP system using only FAT32
formatted disk(s) would be more secure than a similar system
using NTFS formatted disks(s)?
> 3) WinXP was _not_ even usable, in the opinions of several people, in
> the Home/SOHO market _until_ SP2.
It was perfectly usable, buit unfortunately not installable. :-(
As long as you installed the OS either not connected to a network
or connectetd behind a good firewall, installed a whole bunch of
updates and fixes, confugured automatic updates, installed and
activated a firewall and antivirus software, you could then set
it up in a typical Home/SOHO location with a fair chance of
avoiding infection. This is more than a typical company selling
pre-installed systems wants to do of course.
The main difference with SP2 is of course that the built in
firewall is activated by default and easier to configure.
> Hacked in 8 seconds, never more than 15 seconds.
Infected, not hacked. Big difference.
My expereience was that Windows 98/ME boxes installed outside of
firewalls also got infected pretty fast. I haven't installed a
new Windows 98/ME ox in a few years, so that may well have
changed by now.
> 4) And of course, unlike Win9n, WinXP was developed for broadband which
> meant more resources are necessary to run it.
What do you mean with this?
Windows 98 works just fine on broadband connections.
> attempt to use a 48 Kbps (dial-up) connection.) And with a 3 GHz CPU w/
> 1 GB RAM, a bot can run in the background without even being noticed. I
> cannot imagine that happening on any FAT16/FAT32 box that I have ever
> had, irrespective of the connection speed.
That has more to do toth CPU speed and multitasking philosophy
than Internet connection speed or filesystems.
The Windows NT kernel has a different task scheduler than Windows
95/98/ME, and is better at doing things "invisible" in the
background.
> My (and others) bitch about WinXP, even with SP2, has always been about
> default permit.
Then I guess you think Windows 95/98/ME is even worse, since by
default all users has all permissionssionson such a system.
Another thing a lot of people (me included) bitch about is the
services/daemons running by default on a Windows XP system, and
the way the has been made dependant on services that really
shouldn't be running on a workstation.
An example is the RPC service. A workstation shouldn't be
designed to require a running RPC daemon listening on a network
socket, but Windows NT/2K/XP does. And of course it has been
exploited.
> 6) The bots generally use their own SMTP engines, and the ports of their
> choice.
Well...
Any normal SMTP client (that including mail servers, mail readers
and bots) will use the port of it's choice as source port when
opening a connection, but will have to use port 25 as destination
port when connecting to a normal MX server.
/Jonas
--
Jonas Eckerman
http://www.truls.org/
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
| Prev- | Prev- | Mozilla- | Mar- | Next- | Next- |