Macro$haft: Upgrade from Windows XP or risk infinite "zero-days"

On 8/24/2013 6:19 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
While improperly and unnecessarily full-quoting, Andy wrote:

I would recommend chilling out.
I have XP and have no messages to upgrade.
If you are that ticked off, go to Linux.

Did you have to double-space-full-quote my entire post - just to add 3
lines?

I have XP and have no messages to upgrade.

Messages?

I run win-98 on my systems - the emperor's new clothes (the NT-line of
Windows) didn't impress me from the start - I saw it for what it was.
Time has proven me right.


Windows 98 adopted the Windows NT 4.0 kernel and all of the
Windows succeeding it is based on the same kernel.

GR

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Andy
writes:
[]
I would recommend chilling out.

I have XP and have no messages to upgrade.

So do I and nor have I.

If you are that ticked off, go to Linux.

Though don't expect that to be immune to malware just of itself.

http://happynews.com/

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.

I'm thnking the older the OS, the less likely it is to being targeted. But
I'm not really sure how code specific the threats are to each version (and
only that version) of an OS, so that may be a false assumption!

"Never be led astray onto the path of virtue"...
Alas, I don't think you have to worry too much about that one, given what
I've seen of this world, unfortunately. :-)

On Monday, August 26, 2013 1:18:48 PM UTC-5, Bill in Co wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , Andy

I would recommend chilling out.



I have XP and have no messages to upgrade.



So do I and nor have I.



If you are that ticked off, go to Linux.



Though don't expect that to be immune to malware just of itself.



http://happynews.com/



--

J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf



Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.



I'm thnking the older the OS, the less likely it is to being targeted. But

I'm not really sure how code specific the threats are to each version (and

only that version) of an OS, so that may be a false assumption!



"Never be led astray onto the path of virtue"...

Alas, I don't think you have to worry too much about that one, given what

I've seen of this world, unfortunately. :-)

Windows 98 has tons of ways in.

There was even a program someone wrote that separated parts of Internet Explorer from the Win 98 Operating System.

It was supposed to offer more privacy.

Since you posted so many posts, someone may be writing some code right now because they perceive a challenge. :-)

You could crash it accidentally with batch files, etc.

Andy

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 20:43:24 +0100, scbs29
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:59:50 +0000 (UTC), Bert
wrote:

In Paul in Houston TX
wrote:

Something is wrong with your website security.
That link is to newegg. It does not contain any bad stuff.

It's blocking "tinyurl.com" which is like censoring the phone book
because it has phone numbers of bad people in it.

I'm surprised it lets him do searches on google.com; imagine the bad
stuff it might lead him to.

thanks for the replies.
I will take this up with Comodo.

remove fred before emailing
Registered Linux User 490858

I have had a reply from Comodo as follows :

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your mail.

You can check for more details about the web-site http://tinyurl.com
why it is blocking. The domain 'tinyurl.com' is BLACKLISTED.

http://www.urlvoid.com/scan/tinyurl.com
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/tinyurl.com

Should have any queries do not hesitate to write to us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following these links leads to reports that seem to indicate that
tinyurl is overall not trustworthy and does not respond to any
complaints of abuse.

Make of it what you will.


remove fred before emailing
Registered Linux User 490858

In message , scbs29
writes:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 20:43:24 +0100, scbs29
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:59:50 +0000 (UTC), Bert
wrote:
[]
It's blocking "tinyurl.com" which is like censoring the phone book
because it has phone numbers of bad people in it.

I'm surprised it lets him do searches on google.com; imagine the bad
stuff it might lead him to.

thanks for the replies.
I will take this up with Comodo.

remove fred before emailing
Registered Linux User 490858

(A "-- " line _might_ have prevented that being quoted.)

I have had a reply from Comodo as follows :
[]
You can check for more details about the web-site http://tinyurl.com
why it is blocking. The domain 'tinyurl.com' is BLACKLISTED.
[]
Following these links leads to reports that seem to indicate that
tinyurl is overall not trustworthy and does not respond to any
complaints of abuse.

Make of it what you will.
[]
What I make of it is that Comcast (presumably your ISP) are being
overprotective, or at least are making all users suffer for the benefit
of inexperienced users.

tinyurl is just a URL-shortening service, which anyone can use. Of
course, this does make it (and similar services) popular with malware
authors: whenever someone posts a tinyurl link, you need to make a
judgement on whether you trust the person posting it before following
it. (Of course, that applies to any URL!) But for Comcast to block all
of it sounds lazy on their part to me.

Some UEL shorteners - I don't know if including tinyurl - run a scheme
whereby when you use one, you can opt (I presume by cookie) to see an
intermediate page which shows you where the shortened link is actually
going to take you to if you proceed. (Though even if tinyurl do offer
this, that won't help you if Comcast are blocking completely: you need
to find a way round - I don't know if the old trick, for example, still
works of asking a translation site like google to translate the page
from English into English).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Jurassic-period viewers like me for whom /The Flintstones/ was actually a
fly-on-the-wall documentary series. - Alison Graham in Radio Times 3-9 March
2012

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , scbs29
writes:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 20:43:24 +0100, scbs29
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:59:50 +0000 (UTC), Bert
wrote:
[]
It's blocking "tinyurl.com" which is like censoring the phone book
because it has phone numbers of bad people in it.

I'm surprised it lets him do searches on google.com; imagine the bad
stuff it might lead him to.

thanks for the replies.
I will take this up with Comodo.

remove fred before emailing
Registered Linux User 490858

(A "-- " line _might_ have prevented that being quoted.)

I have had a reply from Comodo as follows :
[]
You can check for more details about the web-site http://tinyurl.com
why it is blocking. The domain 'tinyurl.com' is BLACKLISTED.
[]
Following these links leads to reports that seem to indicate that
tinyurl is overall not trustworthy and does not respond to any
complaints of abuse.

Make of it what you will.
[]
What I make of it is that Comcast (presumably your ISP) are being
overprotective, or at least are making all users suffer for the benefit
of inexperienced users.

tinyurl is just a URL-shortening service, which anyone can use. Of
course, this does make it (and similar services) popular with malware
authors: whenever someone posts a tinyurl link, you need to make a
judgement on whether you trust the person posting it before following
it. (Of course, that applies to any URL!) But for Comcast to block all
of it sounds lazy on their part to me.

Some UEL shorteners - I don't know if including tinyurl - run a scheme
whereby when you use one, you can opt (I presume by cookie) to see an
intermediate page which shows you where the shortened link is actually
going to take you to if you proceed. (Though even if tinyurl do offer
this, that won't help you if Comcast are blocking completely: you need
to find a way round - I don't know if the old trick, for example, still
works of asking a translation site like google to translate the page
from English into English).

They should not be blacklisting http://preview.tinyurl.com/xxxxxxx
as the preview page makes it possible to examine the long version
of the link, without going there directly.

That's one of the best features of tinyurl.com, is that if you
pre-pend the word "preview" to the URL, you get to see the link
value. I've seen at least one other link shortener, that offers
no preview capability.

As far as I'm concerned, if posting shortened links from that
site, they should be in the form

http://preview.tinyurl.com/xxxxxxx

so people get a chance to see the link first.

Paul