Windows XP SP2 newbie question!

[MrLinus]

of course it isn't the OS doing the security, but the default settings that are all switched on on windows make it so vulnerable...

So does the default settings of many linux systems. If someone does a default install of a RH system (last one I checked was RH9 I believe) you end up with 15 services running (ie., sendmail, old apache, old ftp server, etc.).

You are doing a comparison of apples to oranges to mandarins. If you had made the statement, "IMO, netbsd is more secure than windows" probably would be less of an issue.

with a default windows installation you need to switch everything off what you do NOT use. and with a default *nix installation you need to switch things on if you want to use them..

Last time I checked when I did a default install of Linux, it turned on things I didn't need. Same can be said for many default installs of other OSes (Mac OS X might be an except as would many of the BSD systems) Novell is the one you have to turn things on. That's part of their view point. I mean if you really want to talk security, get a Novell server and use a Windows front end.

Many of the Linux companies want to get their products out to the masses and they are attempting to do this by making it "easier to set things up". This is a method used successfully by MS to get into Novell's market in the past. Microsoft has made significant changes, IMO, with their recent 2003 product so they are learning, albeit slowly on some things.

If you are happy with netbsd, good for you. The reality is that some are stuck with using Windows (their product is only on Windows and doesn't play well with wine or other emulators). Rather than bash the product, how about helping to solve the issue or problem at hand or add to the discussion (MS's responsibility to the general computing society even when it comes to pirated versions)?

[foxyloxley]

I've read that the SP2 will go onto ANY XP.
But it will not allow any more updates at all on the pirate copies ............

The logic behind this appears to be that the user [those that are aware of the update ability] will want to keep using their WinXP, so they will go and buy a legit copy ..................

[lepricaun]

ohhh sh*t, sorry you're right! i never do a default install like that ( at least, i always do the menu install or expert install), sorry, forgot about that!

although i'm still not happy with windows, please forget my last posts, since they are not entirely to the topic... i was letting myself getting a little carried away...

i just happen to have read the file attached in my previous post just yesterday, and although i already knew a great part of it, it still made me very ANTI-microsoft. because you can retrieve so much data when you have access to a windows system...

please forgive my stupidity...

[Und3ertak3r]

i just happen to have read the file attached in my previous post just yesterday, and although i already knew a great part of it, it still made me very ANTI-microsoft. because you can retrieve so much data when you have access to a windows system...

There was a thread discussing that particular text.. Before getting overly upset by that artical.. do your own tests.. look for return traffic.. determine what it realy is.. be very careful of the conspiricy ppl.. test what they say.. before you believe them or discredit them.. All i can say is remember the Alamo,,, ahh sry,.. Remember the Y2K Bug.. M$ was blamed for that .. **** I didn't know they were responsable for Fortan and Cobol and more..

People will accept information from anyone who seems credible with out testing..

Mind I am not saying M$ is perfect.. if it was I wouldn't be playing with various versions of *nix.

If I were to say to you that "I found a code in the Fedora core 2 that sent settings information back to Red Hat".. many would shoot me down immediatly and deaf ears would abound... But say the same about MS I would have many Anti-MS supporters posting the report all over..
But if I said I was From the "Linux Developers consortium" or the London Time.. would that make my first statement any more credible?

BTW lepricaun That isn't stupidity.. it is concern and eagerness

Cheers..

[lepricaun]

well, i did ran a couple of tests myself, and i'm still testing, but for now, all the things i've tested are correct... like the index.dat file (i already knew this though).

but like i said, i'm still testing.. but one thing is sure, there are way to many services running after a clean install.

[EDIT]
i've installed Tiny Personal Firewall, and at first boot up, svchost.exe is connecting to several sites...

here's the list of ip's (and portnumbers):

208.174.52.30 80
213.254.235.30 80
213.254.235.29 80
62.58.34.73 80
213.254.235.29 137

still have to figure out to where they belong

[/EDIT]