Instead of, why not...

Anthony Atkielski atkielski.anthony at
Sat Feb 12 12:09:34 GMT 2005

Ted Mittelstaedt writes:

> That is really stupid since there's been many security patches that have
> come out in the last year that require rebooting during their install.

My NT machine does not require them.

> If your NT system touches a network that touches the Internet, it needs
> to be patched to current levels.

It doesn't touch anything.

> Failing to do this means you have a
> lack of consideration for the rest of us on the Internet, as unpatched
> Windows systems are the single greatest source of viruses and spam and
> attacks and other trouble on the Internet today.

A system that isn't exposed to the Internet is not vulnerable to direct
attacks, and prudent use of the system renders it invulnerable to
indirect attacks (clicking on infected e-mail, for example).  This
particular system hardly does anything right now; it supports a handful
of legacy apps, and that's all.

> I suppose you don't fix the catalyatic converter on your car when
> it ruptures, either.

I don't have a car.

> Yes it is.  That is why Diskkeeper is standard for all NTFS servers that
> exist within Microsoft.  Another little Microsoft secret for Microsquish
> employees and their friends.

I never saw much of a difference after running defrag on NTFS, so I
don't do it much anymore.

> Except that your not patching, and worse you announced your running
> unpatched windows systems on a public forum ...

No, I'm not.

> - hmm, let's see if I can get that keyboard capture program installed
> on your system before the others do....

Since I have just about everything disabled--no Javascript, no ActiveX,
no Java, no HTML--that might be difficult.  I never execute attachments,
and none of the software I have will execute attachments implicitly.
I've installed the patches for the JPEG vulnerability.

As I've said, the only virus infection I've ever had was on FreeBSD.


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list