Could somebody post a link to command.com pleasee ASAP [addsig]

What DOS version? Ok. I guess six since you have win95. I'll e-mail it to you.

_________________
If VB is fun, what's everything else?

[ This Message was edited by: dxprog on 2002-06-20 02:48 ]

Ok, ppls, backup files before you edit them.

I always do. I have tried replacing my kernel with an NT kernel I have from a service pack. Didn't work with Win95 but I haven't tried 98 yet. Maybe I'll do that. [addsig]

I don't need to backup my files since linux won't break that easily
btw, isn't command.com a binary file? :/
[addsig]

Quote:
On 2002-06-21 16:22, KaGez wrote:
I don't need to backup my files since linux won't break that easily

...said the admin before he got fired.

Kagez, Linux will break just as easy, these are the main files of the 9x OS, if you removed the main files in Linux, it would stuff up too.

as long as you aren't fiddling around in your system as root, nothing can happen. In windows 98 for example you can break everything with just any user
[addsig]

All windows really needs is a handful of files. Basically its:
krnl386.exe
gdi.exe
user.exe
explorer.exe
kernel32.dll
user32.dll
gdi32.dll

Those are the core files. When you do Windows install, it uses only the ones above explorer in my list. [addsig]

eh? eve no OS installer will work without a kernel... or does it use a different one?
[addsig]

Basically, for Win install it loads up a very simple 3.1. Even uses the same GUI. Hey, maybe XP install is a very simple 95. [addsig]

hehe, XP installer is basically the same as in Win2k. Slow and ugly
[addsig]

Kagez,
kernel32.dll
user32.dll
gdi32.dll
are pretty much the OS kernel.

And Windows 9x was not created for multiusers or for security in mind, just to be user freindly, that is why you can break it, cause there is no Root or normal user.

But in NT and 2k etc, they were designed to have security, and user managment, with them you can restrict access for normal users over root.

Quote:
And Windows 9x was not created for multiusers or for security in mind, just to be user freindly,[..]

mh, that didn't quite work out as planned did it?

When it comes to security, Windows lacks. XP had a huge hole in their new "firewall". [addsig]

if you can call it firewall that is... but I think that's why you quoted it... using IE or Outlook is maybe one of the biggest security holes you can create on your PC. Not that I don't like them, I like IE, cuz it's fast, but I hate those "standards" they always "introduce" with "new" versions of IE.
[addsig]

Microsoft is know for the stability of its products, the same can be said of the security of each and every one of its products.

I should have said for an attempt at security NT,2k,XP should be your choice, main point of what I said was about 9x not being made for multiusers.
(-:

Quote:
On 2002-06-24 19:29, sacah wrote:
Microsoft is know for the stability of its products, the same can be said of the security of each and every one of its products.


You ARE joking now, aren't you?

The only MS products that are stable, that I know of, is their games and Win NT/2000/XP. I think sacah meant not know for stablility and was comparing the security issue to that. The main reason Outlook could be called insecure is because that's what all the viruses target, because that's what everyone uses. That was a poorly constructed sentence.

_________________
If VB is fun, what's everything else?

[ This Message was edited by: dxprog on 2002-06-25 02:41 ]

Dxprog, where did you hear about this security hole in Windows XP's firewall? After searching Slashdot, SecurityFocus.com, Microsoft's Security Bulletins, and Google, I found absolutely nothing about a security hole in that firewall. Are you saying there's simply the potential for security holes to be discovered because it's from Microsoft or that there is a known vulnerability in Windows XP's personal firewall? I'd like to know because I am one of the Windows XP-using (and Linux, don't worry) minority here.

I think CNN said that, and one of my PC Upgrade magazines had said that their might be problems with it. Here is the CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/industry/01/24/reeves.interview.idg/index.html There is a fix for it now, so don't fret about that. [addsig]

KaGez: I hate these IE standards, too.

There has been a time I developed webstuff for IE and I almost got crazy trying to make it look the same in other browsers.

From that time on I began to develop for Mozilla and to keep to the W3C standard as much as possible. As a result the pages developed for Moz look almost the same in every browser. That's as much convenience as a webprogrammer might wish for these days. [addsig]

Ok, sorry, Aussie Humor.

Microsoft is know for the stability of its products, the same can be said of the security of each and every one of its products.

Everyone knows MS is not stable, so that can also be said about their security...

Get it, they arnt known for their stable, the same can be said of the security of each and everyone of its products.

(-:

But you like it anyways. Actually, since I upgraded my computer from my old mother board that has been the most stable thing I have ever seen. And I thought Win98SE was worse than 95. [addsig]

Quote:
On 2002-06-25 17:18, sacah wrote:
Everyone knows MS is not stable, so that can also be said about their security...

Get it, they arnt known for their stable, the same can be said of the security of each and everyone of its products.

(-:


Well Nt/2k are at least quite stable... That is, no need to reboot every few days. As for security, that's a different thing Not that all OpenSource projects were extremely secure, but in general vulnerabilities in open source projects are handled better and more responsibly. An exception would be the recently found Apache problem... Exploits for Remote root are available for Windows, FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD already. Linux is supposed to be vulnerable, too. Well, if you don'Ät know the whole sotry, basically some security company called "ISS" published the problem providing a source patch that didn't work without notifying any of the vendors early enough.. Lead to quite some fuss :/

Nothing can be totally secure. Someone will be able find a way around every security protocol. [addsig]

My 98se is very stable, and when its powers off, its notably secure too. Not 100%, but close.
(-;

Quote:
On 2002-06-26 02:35, dxprog wrote:
Nothing can be totally secure. Someone will be able find a way around every security protocol.


that's like argueing Tetrodotoxine isn't dangerous because other things are toxic, too (like water... try drinking 15 liters in 5 minutes, it's deadly).

What? [addsig]

fsvara: You have lost it
Just though I would tell you
(-:

hmm, i dunno, what was wrong? tetrodotoxine is a poison that the globe-fish produces.. very toxic... in the light of that information, just read my post again a few times maybe you'll undertsnad the reasoning behind it

Whatever. What I meant to say is everything is insecure. [addsig]

Nothing is secure...
You have never used IIS...
Its another quality secure Microsoft Product.
(-:

yeah, I also _LOVE_ ISS' security! It really rox, and I think it's definitely a try worth!!
[addsig]

Today I read about a apache worm. I wonder why I haven't heard of one before. Considering the number of Apaches out there you should think that thousands of hackers tried to bring it down.

Well, maybe Apache is simply better

(just consider the fast bugfixes...) [addsig]

Is IIS really that secure? You'd think being an MS product that it would be as secure as a cardboard box. [addsig]

It's less secure, I suppose... [addsig]

there have been a few apache worms before this one, I reckon a cardboard box is pretty secure.
(-:

...compared to a lot of Microsoft's quality products. However Microsoft's stuff requires you to pay a lot, so they must be better, right?

Okay, how about if I said that MS's products are aboput as secure as a veneer box. Or a paper bag. [addsig]

ISS is the most secure server program out there, not stop doubting in that!!
[addsig]

It must be if you're backing up a MS product. [addsig]

hehe, sure it is
(/me thinks he should stop now ....)
[addsig]

I think Im goin to be with Win98se for a few years to come, Though MS are working on a New Secure Stable OS, its really goin to be secure and stable this time. But I dont think it will be the OS they release in 2004, 1.5 years is just not enought time to make Windows secure and stable, mabye 2006 or such.
(-;

I bet it'll be here in about 6 years or something... and I _bet_ they'll use linux code for this.. seriously... do you remember what they did with the BSD FTP proggy?
[addsig]

the next big step towards "security" seems to be ms's palladium.... which actually means - digital rights management everywhere. in the hardware, in the software, in your head.. it means microsoft will enfore copyright on each and every machine... Yeah. Imagine Microsoft, AOL, and the RIAA teaming up to dominate the world... ok maybe not aol... but anyway...

That's scary [addsig]

AOL could not even find its shoe laces, I doubt World Domination would be an option for them, but the other 2 yes.

I will probly be on Linux for the rest of my life, 98se will be last MS OS I use, unless their future OS's actually turn out to be ok.

What's wrong with XP? [addsig]

If you are just a point and click user, not knowing, or not wantin to know whats goin on in the bg, XP is fine, but once you know whats goin on, its scary, plus you just get annoyed at how much it tried to help you.
With an experianced user, the help just makes it hard and slow to do anything.

Thats whats wrong with XP.

I only use Win because Linux can't run on my 60gig hd, and 5.33gig hd is worthless.

Oh by the way - I am running 3.1 in bochs (even I dont know why). It has a dos virus scanner. What an oxymoron!

XP lollipops. I have had to reformat my hd four times because the help menu won't open, the user accounts control panel won't open, and it displays the folder tree without me asking. They say it's intuitive, but it is the worst scandisking (that is even worse than fsck) waste of hard disk space since Multics. [addsig]