Just 12 minutes

"David H. Lipman" wrote:

> | Windows 98/se, as installed using it's default installation
> | settings, is not (and was not) vulnerable to network-based
> | exploits (worms | mostly) like NT, 2K and XP were,
>
> Not 100% true.
>
> For TCP ports 135 and 445 - yes.
>
> However Win9x/ME was very vulnerable to worms using NetBIOS over
> IP as infection vectors.

The default installation settings for win-98 did not include printer
or file-sharing turned on (while on the contrary XP's default setting
WAS to have file sharing turned on).

Also note that Win-98 was not vulnerable to Welchia or Blaster.

> The BugBear comes to mind as well as Baloon
> and Netlog worms.

Again, they wouldn't be able to infect a default installation of
Win-98/se - even a virgin install (no patches or updates applied to
it).

Also note that it was quite common to use NetBEUI (not TCP/IP) for
file sharing on SOHO networks back when '98 was popular, so again
there was an added layer of protection in the event that file sharing
was turned on.

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:39:47 -0000, "Ant" <not RemoveThis @home.today> wrote:

>No point. There was nothing of value there the first time. You're
>obviously a newbie and a troll.

That was obvious from the outset.


Jim.