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]

Message-ID: <002601c4cb52$efe5ad20$6500a8c0@p41700>
From: chows at ozemail.com.au (Gregh)
Subject: [in] Re: IE is just as safe as FireFox

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <jbernts@...adpark.no>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: [in] Re: [Full-Disclosure] IE is just as safe as FireFox

> Quoting Raoul Nakhmanson-Kulish <raoul@...orsoft.com>:
> 
>> Hello, Curt Purdy!
>> 
>> > Upgrade W2K to XP?  I call that a downgrade! I won't allow XP (sp2 or not)
>> > on my network.
>> Agreed, I feel 2K to be more reliable than XP too. But mainly this is 
>> only my feeling, could you explain and prove it by more solid arguments 
>> than feelings?
>> 
>> -- 
> 
> Windows 2K is much easier to reinstall than Windows XP, 

Since when? I have to deal with any Windows from 95 on upwards in my small networks I see. 95-ME are so easy to reinstall it is laughable.

W2K-XP reinstalls are harder but both remain equally the same so far as reinstall is concerned. My main annoyance with both is that if you are restoring an image to another machine in the case that the original machine is just toast, you can almost always never immediately use the restored image unless it was restored to a machine with exactly the same machinery in it. The restore requires some more work to get it working and ever when working often requires a registry hack or upgrade to the next SP in order to fix networking problems. Either way, it isn't hard, just annoyingly extra work that shouldn't NEED to be done. XP has one extra that W2K doesn't have in that it would require you to reactivate it in order to remain "valid" and sometimes that varies from "reactivate NOW" to "Reactivate within 3 days". You never find a customer who, with a large network, wants to make sure that every new machine has multiples of the same parts in case of breakdown of parts on the machine - understandably - either so you are ALWAYS faced with those problems now.

I never see any difference in a W2K reinstall to XP reinstall, either fresh or from my preferred source - an image.

Greg.