From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 12 12:09:34 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F6E16A4CF for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:09:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp9.wanadoo.fr (smtp9.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A115D43D3F for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:09:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0908.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 89FEB1C00144 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:09:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf0908.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 638841C00141 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:09:32 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20050212120932407.638841C00141@mwinf0908.wanadoo.fr Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:09:31 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <478098168.20050212130931@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: References: <1118428918.20050212124140@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:09:34 -0000 Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > That is really stupid since there's been many security patches that have > come out in the last year that require rebooting during their install. My NT machine does not require them. > If your NT system touches a network that touches the Internet, it needs > to be patched to current levels. It doesn't touch anything. > Failing to do this means you have a > lack of consideration for the rest of us on the Internet, as unpatched > Windows systems are the single greatest source of viruses and spam and > attacks and other trouble on the Internet today. A system that isn't exposed to the Internet is not vulnerable to direct attacks, and prudent use of the system renders it invulnerable to indirect attacks (clicking on infected e-mail, for example). This particular system hardly does anything right now; it supports a handful of legacy apps, and that's all. > I suppose you don't fix the catalyatic converter on your car when > it ruptures, either. I don't have a car. > Yes it is. That is why Diskkeeper is standard for all NTFS servers that > exist within Microsoft. Another little Microsoft secret for Microsquish > employees and their friends. I never saw much of a difference after running defrag on NTFS, so I don't do it much anymore. > Except that your not patching, and worse you announced your running > unpatched windows systems on a public forum ... No, I'm not. > - hmm, let's see if I can get that keyboard capture program installed > on your system before the others do.... Since I have just about everything disabled--no Javascript, no ActiveX, no Java, no HTML--that might be difficult. I never execute attachments, and none of the software I have will execute attachments implicitly. I've installed the patches for the JPEG vulnerability. As I've said, the only virus infection I've ever had was on FreeBSD. -- Anthony