Re: Modern antivirus for NT3.51?
From: Auric__ (not.my.real_at_email.address)
Date: 08/29/05
- Next message: David H. Lipman: "Re: I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?"
- Previous message: B. Chernick: "I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?"
- In reply to: David H. Lipman: "Re: Modern antivirus for NT3.51?"
- Next in thread: Phil Weldon: "Re: Modern antivirus for NT3.51?"
- Reply: Phil Weldon: "Re: Modern antivirus for NT3.51?"
- Reply: David H. Lipman: "Re: Modern antivirus for NT3.51?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:56:58 -0700
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:24:49 -0400, David H. Lipman wrote:
>From: "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address>
>
>| On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:16:00 -0400, David H. Lipman wrote:
>|
>>> From: "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address>
>>>
>>|> I'm setting up an NT 3.51 system (no, really) and I'm looking for a
>>|> fairly recent antivirus that'll work on it. (I've got F-prot DOS and F-
>>|> secure DOS but I'm hoping for something Windows-based.) Any suggestions?
>>|>
>>|> Here's what I've tried so far:
>>>
>>> Forget about it !
>>>
>>> NY v5.51 is dead and buried and it successor NT v4 is also dead.
>|
>| Yes, I know. I don't use most modern OS's.
>|
>>> There are NO modern AV
>>> applications that will work under NT v5.51 as their requirements are not met by this OS.
>|
>| Thank you. That's all I needed to know.
>|
>>> There is no reason to use this OS and it will only leave you open to all sorts of
>>> exploitations since there are no security patches for this OS.
>|
>| My reasons are ultimately unimportant, yes? And I'm aware of the
>| security considerations.
>|
>>> If you are setting up such an archaic OS, then I suggest standing it up w/o any form of
>>> Internet access.
>|
>| I'll consider that, but even if I don't do TCP/IP, it will still be on
>| the network via NetBIOS, and my other machines most definitely do have
>| Internet access.
>| --
>| auric dot auric at gmail dot com
>| *****
>| ...the thought hadn't so much crossed my mind as ran screaming in
>| incoherent terror over it.
>
>First.. My apologies for typing... NY v5.51 and NT v5.51 when it should have been "NT
>v3.51."
>At least you understood ;-)
NP. You should see the stuff I write before it hits spellcheck. :-/
>The only way to communicate NetBIOS are the following...
>
>NetBIOS over IPX/SPX
>NetBIOS over TCP/IP
>NetBEUI
Right, I know.
>If the other PCs do have Internet access then the LAN can still share Internet worms. Even
>if the ones with Internet access used TCP/IP and NetBEUI or TCP/IP and NetBIOS over IPX/SPX
>(TCP/IP for Internet and NetBEUI or NetBIOS over IPX for MS Networking) you still chance
>Internet worms infecting the NT v3.51 platform via NT shares (both created and
>administrative). Such worms as BugBear and SDBot would still have a field day if the NT
>v3.51 platform was not sufficiently hardened.
That's why I'm seeking a good antivirus. (I'm also looking for a working
firewall, but that's OT here, right?)
If the NT3 machine *did* get infected with a worm, wouldn't my Win2k
machine's antivirus (AVG free) or firewall (Outpost free) tell me
something's not kosher?
Finally... do DOS scanners work okay under NT machines, or is the
environment too different?
-- auric dot auric at gmail dot com ***** Your clothes, give them to me, now.
- Next message: David H. Lipman: "Re: I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?"
- Previous message: B. Chernick: "I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?"
- In reply to: David H. Lipman: "Re: Modern antivirus for NT3.51?"
- Next in thread: Phil Weldon: "Re: Modern antivirus for NT3.51?"
- Reply: Phil Weldon: "Re: Modern antivirus for NT3.51?"
- Reply: David H. Lipman: "Re: Modern antivirus for NT3.51?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
