Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 52837	2004-12-31 08:51:00	Symantec warns SP2 not safe	drb1 (4492)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
309271	2005-01-01 10:59:00	Do you have a link to the DOD advice to use another browser? And what do the DOD have to do with it anyway - What do they have to do with internet browsing or the like. Surely this advice would normally come from computer experts rather than the military? :confused: And I didn't find the word "safe", or a reference to Symantec warning that SP2 is not safe, in the linked article. Maybe they removed that comment before I got to read it? Mike. Mike, it's right there at the heading: "Windows XP users Phelled by new Trojan Symantec warns SP2 not safe" As for the DOD advice, I can't find it either, but I do remember seeing something like that a few weeks ago.	george12 (7)
309272	2005-01-01 11:10:00	Lets just say that it would have been more appropriately titled "Symantec warns that even SP2 is vulnerable". Or a myriad of other things. It happens people, no need to get worked up.... Firefox aint perfect either, you can still get popups :( Personally I like how it was in 0.9 best! I still say ignorance is bliss! Chill.	Chilling_Silence (9)
309273	2005-01-01 11:41:00	I don't think tedheath was trying to mislead us, he just made a mistake. I use firefox = safe. Phew same phew :thumbs:	Codex (3761)
309274	2005-01-01 12:44:00	Do you have a link to the DOD advice to use another browser? And what do the DOD have to do with it anyway - What do they have to do with internet browsing or the like . Surely this advice would normally come from computer experts rather than the military? :confused: And I didn't find the word "safe", or a reference to Symantec warning that SP2 is not safe, in the linked article . Maybe they removed that comment before I got to read it? Mike . Mike, Cut and paste, just for you . Windows XP users Phelled by new Trojan Symantec warns SP2 not safe 30 Dec 2004 19:56 As to the dod google, there as so many references to this old news, or even forum search there may be links to the articles here, I may even have posted them . As to any one who sujjests dod are not at the fore of computer and sw development, well really . DOD develop languages that Corporations like M/Scam copy . DOD fund NASA programs in conjunction with Red-hat and open source that developed Mars rover among other things . The Tsunami warning systems were also developed in conjunction with dod as were most weather monitoring programs and globall warming reaserch which still gets much of its unadultarated inf from dod satallites and dod get all the G/W data and anayalsis in return, first . dod funded the competetion for the best totally computer controlled transport vehicle, the winners got massive grants and reaserch assistance, and facility and equippment provided . Because dod wants unmanned combatt vehicles, NOW . DOD research gave us heads up displays on helmet visors, filtering down from Apache, private enterprise funds none of this cutting edge R and D, it just sucks it all up, and improves it and claims the credit . And dod is not at the fore of computer related development, would you like to refrase that???????????? Can you tell us where Velcrowe which was never patented came from?? Just to clear something If anything I am Politically anti: Totally Capalist, Ecoligically and Socially Irresponsible America, and definatly anti G . Warmonger Bush . I stated along with may others the day Warmonger started campaigning, a vote for Bush is a Vote for war . We were not wrong 911 was just a Very unfortunate step along the way . I do not deny reality because of any of this . D .	drb1 (4492)
309275	2005-01-01 13:10:00	The facts are DRB you have a bee in your bonnet for some reason about XP and particulary SP2 . Well none of your misleading comments are fooling many people . XP SP2 isnt going to go away just yet . Virus writers are going to target the most commonly used OS so its a cat chasing its tail scenario . As far as the US DOD recommending the military not to use sp2 thats a load of guano . You remind me of those [removed] mass emailing all their friends a few years ago about spurious warnings of viruses targeting 98 ME etc . tedheath Ted Heath was a dissaster as a prime minister and you tedheath are an: Uninformed, Unfactuall, Reactionary . I posted a link, and made no comment, I cut and pasted the title to the link from the article header . Let the reader decide????????? Personally the sooner Opensource/linux develop a point click O/S with major H/W compatabilitys the better off much of the planet will be . M/Scam and CO keep on changing the rules, to make this as hard as possible, and Slice as much profit from the consumer as possible using FUD spread by People like you, teadheath . Whom attack anything like truth that is not 100% positive to M/Scam My reply to your personall insults is to reiterate [Edit: comment removed . Oh yeah, and a Moderator's reply to what you posted is to remove it and point out to the poster the Rules ( . pcworld . co . nz/showthread . php?t=52243" target="_blank">forums . pcworld . co . nz), specifically No . 1] And you may know what that really means . D .	drb1 (4492)
309276	2005-01-01 21:02:00	Mike, it's right there at the heading: "Windows XP users Phelled by new Trojan Symantec warns SP2 not safe" No it's not. I am sure that I saw it there when I first looked and a search with Google brings up a few results with "not safe" in the title but they must have removed it not long afterwards.	FoxyMX (5)
309277	2005-01-03 04:03:00	im still happy with sp1, ive got a firewall and virus scanner so im not worried	Prescott (11)
309278	2005-01-03 08:01:00	My reply to your personall insults is to reiterate [Edit: comment removed. Oh yeah, and a Moderator's reply to what you posted is to remove it and point out to the poster the Rules (forums.pcworld.co.nz), specifically No. 1] And you may know what that really means. D.[/QUOTE] Interesting to see Heaths posts complete with insults of a simular nature still. Same double standards.	drb1 (4492)
309279	2005-01-03 09:38:00	There is one thing that is for sure - no matter how safe Windows XP is or isn't with SP2 -XP is still a lot safer with SP2 than without it. Furthermore, those older operating systems like 98 are less safe than XP. Got XP SP 2 the day it was released - have had grand total of zero problems since. Kept it patched and the recent experiment by Kevin Mitnick demonstrated a SP 2 machine with firewall on wasn't compromised, but XP with no patches lasts about 4 minutes. Add in Zone Alarm Pro, Giant, Nod 32, Spyblaster and Adaware and I reckon I have a shot at survival!!!! www.usatoday.com	Twelvevolts (5457)
309280	2005-01-03 19:48:00	To keep things in perspective there are some relevant points on that report. Connected to the Internet via broadband DSL not Dialup 3059,922 attempts only 9 successful and only where the XP firewall was not activated. With an updated and patched XP with XP firewall running it appears that the chance of your system being compromised would be quite remote. There were no successful compromises of the Macintosh even though the built in firewall was not activated. From www.usatoday.com Each PC was connected to the Internet via a broadband DSL connection and monitored for two weeks in September. Break-in attempts began immediately and continued at a constant and high level: an average of 341 per hour against the Windows XP machine with no firewall or recent security patches, 339 per hour against the Apple Macintosh and 61 per hour against the Windows Small Business Server. Each was sold without an activated firewall. While attempted break-ins never ceased, successful compromises were limited to nine instances on the minimally protected Windows XP computer and a single break-in of the Windows Small Business Server. There were no successful compromises of the Macintosh, the Linspire or the two Windows XPs using firewalls.	Safari (3993)
1 2 3