Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

[Anthony Atkielski]

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.

-- 
Anthony