Re: How safe is a "Limited" XP account?
From: xpyttl (xpyttl_NOSPAM_at_earthling.net)
Date: 02/25/05
- Previous message: Todd H.: "Re: How safe is a "Limited" XP account?"
- In reply to: Todd H.: "Re: How safe is a "Limited" XP account?"
- Next in thread: Todd H.: "Re: How safe is a "Limited" XP account?"
- Reply: Todd H.: "Re: How safe is a "Limited" XP account?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:24:29 -0500
"Todd H." <comphelp@toddh.net> wrote in message
news:m03bvlliu7.fsf@ripco.com...
> No, this is not necessarily true. It depends on the vulnerability the
> virus/worm utilizes.
Another big "it depends" is the file system. If your XP is installed on the
NTFS it is very, very, much more secure than if it is installed on a FAT or
FAT32 filesystem. On FAT32, your limited account can pretty much write any
file. Not so on NTFS.
I'm afraid that some posters are right in that most Windows users do their
day to day work on an administrative account. There seem to be a number of
applications from major vendors that just plain won't work on a limited
account, especially on SP2.
I'm not convinced that XP/SP2 on NTFS by itself is any less secure than
Linux without SELinux. However, the applications are another matter
entirely.
..
- Previous message: Todd H.: "Re: How safe is a "Limited" XP account?"
- In reply to: Todd H.: "Re: How safe is a "Limited" XP account?"
- Next in thread: Todd H.: "Re: How safe is a "Limited" XP account?"
- Reply: Todd H.: "Re: How safe is a "Limited" XP account?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|