Re: Modern antivirus for NT3.51?

From: Phil Weldon (notdiscosed_at_example.com)
Date: 08/29/05 

Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:09:51 GMT

'Auric__' wrote, in part::
| 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?

Yes, but only as a protection for the Windows 2000 system. How about media
recorded by the NT 3.51 system?

Try a DMZ machine between your Typhoid Mary system and the rest of the
network. Also transfer any media bound for the NT 3.51 system through the
DMZ machine, using an up-to-date anti-malware collection to insure purity.
After all, an NT 3.51 system with no protection could, even if not infected
itself, be a viral reservoir.

Phil Weldon

"Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> wrote in message
news:ejf4h1pe4nvdseoghlh7d872kt511t4su7@4ax.com...
> 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.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hardware firewall and DMZ machine - put what services where?
    ... > send out emails from its php engine via SMTP, ... > I assume it's still safe to host DNS on the DMZ machine? ... > I'll find a cheap server to host a mail service for the trusted network. ... that the firewall shouldn't ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • iptables and nat
    ... I have a firewall machine which is connected ... expected to the dmz machine but it doesnt respond. ... 62.xxx.xxx.xxx> Test_DMZ: icmp: echo request ... A section of my iptables script is below.Can anyone see where im going ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • NATting external ip addresses to internal adddress problem
    ... I have a firewall machine and a dmz machine behind ... and my iptables script is as follows: ... echo "setting default drop policy.." ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • To Jail behind NAT or not.
    ... I'm using PF to redirect traffic to the DMZ machine which carries the following: ... paranoid to have multiple jails one for postfix another for apache and ... additional protection because services are behind NAT? ... I use SSH keys to access anymachin on my network, ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: iptables and nat
    ... >> What is happening is that the packets are seemingly being routed as ... >> expected to the dmz machine but it doesnt respond. ... >> running on the dmz machine and if for example I ping the firewall ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)