full-disclosure - [in] Re: IE is just as safe as FireFox

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: chows at ozemail.com.au (Gregh)
Subject: [in] Re: IE is just as safe as FireFox 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Curt Purdy" <purdy@...man.com>
To: <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>; <Colin.Scott@...lc.com>
Cc: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 11:59 PM
Subject: RE: [in] Re: [Full-Disclosure] IE is just as safe as FireFox 

> 
> Upgrade W2K to XP?  I call that a downgrade! I won't allow XP (sp2 or not)
> on my network. All new boxes must be reformatted and W2K or SuSE Linux or
> BSD installed (unless of course it is a Mac with OpenBSD kernel that is
> always welcome).
> 

Why? XP has System Restore in it which certainly beats the hell out of restoring an image any day when a minor problem crops up. Also, as you know what you are doing, it is no less able to be protected than W2K.

The only annoyance I have with XP on a network is it is dog slow to become part of the network unless you manually assign it an IP number, which I always do anyway. I never saw an auto assigned IP on a network so slow before this. I find XP to be basically W2K with a few extras in it but note I don't have anything to do with large networks when saying that so haven't had the chance to see it operating on one. 20-30 together though, it seems as good as W2K and when properly protected - as you would do with W2k - seems fine to me.

What am I missing?

Greg.