keep XP updated until 2019

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 11:53:00 -0400, Stan Weiss
wrote:


I am writing this on a computer with W2K and AVG. and it still updates
the definitions. But it is not the later versions. You need to find
version 9, download and install it.

That's no problem.
http://www.oldapps.com/avast_antivirus.php
oldapps.com has all of the old stuff, and it's not one of those annoying
sites that tries to trick you into downloading something else. I pretty
much download everything from that site now, except for drivers.
But I have to wait till I go to a WIFI site to download it, and then I
have to wonder how many hours (or days) it will take to download the
definition files on dialup.

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 06:02:27 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

That's too bad. Security Essentials (SE) seemed to be one of the best
AV programs available, at least of the free ones. I suppose I may as
well just uninstall it then. I guess I'll have to buy Kaspersky then.
I'm not impressed with any of the free ones. In fact AVG claims to run
on Windows 2000 SP4. That's what I have on one computer, yet it wont
install. I guess when it comes to something as important as AV
software, one cant be cheap. However I wont touch anything made by
Symantec. I always figured that MS would make the best AV, since they
know the OS best.

Have you tried Avast at all? Been using it for years, since I gave up
on Norton. Not a problem anywhere.

I did use it many years ago, for Win98, but then it stopped updating. I
recall it tended to slow my system down, but I changed the settings so
it was not running all the time. This is years ago, I think I got it to
work so I had to manually run it, but that's ok.....

I only downloaded AVG because they have a 4meg version, and on dialup
that's doable. But their claim to run on Win2000 SP4, is not true. It
quit installing halfway thru, saying some file wont work on this version
of windows..... (It *IS* SP4).

Why do almost all AV programs have names that begin with "AV". It's
confusing.....

AVAST
AVG
AVIRA

In message ,
writes:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 01:22:16 -0400, XP Guy "XP"@Guy. com wrote:

wrote:

I hope that also updates Security Essentials. I'm sick of that
thing nagging me that XP is expired.

Apparently, Microsoft dropped support for POS Ready 2009 with version 2
of Security Essentials. MSE is only supported on XP 32-bit, and
vista/w7 32 and 64-bit. It is not supported on any other platforms.

That's too bad. Security Essentials (SE) seemed to be one of the best
AV programs available, at least of the free ones. I suppose I may as
well just uninstall it then. I guess I'll have to buy Kaspersky then.

What XP Guy says above, I read as meaning MSE doesn't support POS; I was
under the impression that, for plain XP SP3 (i. e. that _hasn't_ been
hacked to look like POS), MSE _is_ still being updated, or at least its
definition files are. But I might be misinterpreting what XP Guy said.

I'm not impressed with any of the free ones. In fact AVG claims to run

As I've said, Avira works for me.

on Windows 2000 SP4. That's what I have on one computer, yet it wont
install. I guess when it comes to something as important as AV
software, one cant be cheap. However I wont touch anything made by
Symantec. I always figured that MS would make the best AV, since they
know the OS best.

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

What is the world to a man when his wife is a widow? (think about it ...)

In message ,
writes:
[]
Why do almost all AV programs have names that begin with "AV". It's
confusing.....

AVAST
AVG
AVIRA


Because they're AV programs?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

What is the world to a man when his wife is a widow? (think about it ...)

In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
useful, but security patches? No one should be using IE8
anyway, so patches there are irrelevant. What else is there?
[]
According to someone here in the IEradicator debates (which I thought
was you), everyone's using parts of IE anyway, whether they like it or
not, even if they use another browser for actual browsing - so doesn't
that make patches for it totally relevant?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

What is the world to a man when his wife is a widow? (think about it ...)

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 05:27:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 01:22:16 -0400, XP Guy "XP"@Guy. com wrote:

wrote:

I hope that also updates Security Essentials. I'm sick of that
thing nagging me that XP is expired.

Apparently, Microsoft dropped support for POS Ready 2009 with version 2
of Security Essentials. MSE is only supported on XP 32-bit, and
vista/w7 32 and 64-bit. It is not supported on any other platforms.

That's too bad. Security Essentials (SE) seemed to be one of the best
AV programs available, at least of the free ones.

+1

I suppose I may as
well just uninstall it then. I guess I'll have to buy Kaspersky then.
I'm not impressed with any of the free ones. In fact AVG claims to run
on Windows 2000 SP4.

AVG = massive bloat

That's what I have on one computer, yet it wont
install. I guess when it comes to something as important as AV
software, one cant be cheap. However I wont touch anything made by
Symantec. I always figured that MS would make the best AV, since they
know the OS best.

Not necessarily -- it depends how many virii/malware programs it can
detect.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

Mayayana wrote:

... but security patches? No one should be using IE8 anyway, so
patches there are irrelevant.

Why should no one be using IE8?

IE8 is currently just as vulnerable to exploits as IE9, 10 or 11 if you
apply POS2009 IE updates to your XP system.

On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:45:48 +0100, Mark
wrote:

Not necessarily -- it depends how many virii/malware programs it can
detect.

Even that's relative. I may run CLAM once every year if not two on a
download. My OS is locked in, comparatively. Everything going out is
turned off, firewalls, registry blockers, shared resources & etc.

Though what does it is hardening an OS installation before ever
connecting to the WWW, and keeping that state in a binary partition
image. E.G., I'm looking 45 seconds to go from platter binary image
to SSD and reboot (programs get installed to other partitions - never
the OS active partition). Couple minutes if quibbling.

I run those images sometimes weekly and never have had need for much
in the way of going AV type concerns. Be like going into some sort of
obsessive sicko domain, to me, a kludge factor and complexity the AV
industry has foisted over the years.

Then again - a "set it and forget it" is what people want. Not the
time to actually study potential problem areas and learn how far
common sense applies to protecting both hard and software.

Effectively, I've never run (with) the stuff (Clam, SourceForge is a
standalone - and it's database resources here are, as usual, sadly
outdated).

I also have nothing whatsoever to do with MS;- running XP/SP1 on this
machine. Their site sometimes gives me the shivers occasionally when
reading their FAQs;- I'm careful about what I push there. (It's a
rare update, I'll allow, mostly for hardware updates, then as easily
circulated and found elsewhere)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

What XP Guy says above, I read as meaning MSE doesn't support POS;

From what I've read, MS dropped support for MSE for POS2009 when version
2 of MSE came out. Supposedly, if you can still find the installer for
version 1 of MSE, it will work with POS2009 but will always show the
exclamation point icon because it wants to upgrade to version 2.

So for those with XP that use the POS2009 registry hack and who want to
keep using MSE, one experiment to try is to install version 1 of MSE and
see if it will receive MSE definition updates (but don't update it to
version 2).

Try downloading it from he

http://fs40.filehippo.com/8625/ece7a...e-en-us-xp.exe

That is the direct download link for Security Essentials 1.0.2498 (XP).

Very hard to find working links for MSE version 1.x.

| useful, but security patches? No one should be using IE8
| anyway, so patches there are irrelevant. What else is there?
| []
| According to someone here in the IEradicator debates (which I thought
| was you), everyone's using parts of IE anyway, whether they like it or
| not, even if they use another browser for actual browsing - so doesn't
| that make patches for it totally relevant?

No, not really. The system uses IE browser windows
for various things: CHM help files, HTAs, 3rd-party
software.... So you can't take out the actual browser.
But that's not the same as using it online. There have
been 3 recent patches for IE that I'm aware of:

https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/ms14-021
https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/ms14-024
https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/ms14-029

They're all for attacks that employ a webpage hack.
A lot of bugs involve "privilege elevation", which generally
doesn't apply to XP. Most other bugs involve online attacks.
If you don't use MS software online, those don't apply.

What's left? Mainly file corruption attacks. In other words,
you have to be attacked from somewhere. IE can't get attacked
just by sitting there. For instance, there could be a case
where you download a corrupt CHM. (There have been CHM
bugs in the past.) There could also be .DOC bugs, if you have
MS Office installed. There was even a bug in .EMF graphic files
a few years ago. Just about any file type that allows for script
or other executable functionality can have bugs. (CHM, PDF, SWF,
any PE file, HTML.) It's possible that there could be
something like a new CHM attack, but in general the patches
coming through are not going to matter for people who don't
use IE online. (One should avoid downloading CHM, PDF, or
DOC files from mysterious Chinese websites, in any case.
Whether you're fully patched or not, that's a risk.)

IE has been an unusable mess, security-wise, for years,
but that's as a browser used online. In Windows it's ubiquitous
and not particularly risky. I love IE. I use it for HTAs, for testing
webpages, and I have it set as my default browser so that I
can open HTML files locally without waiting for Firefox to load.
I just don't allow IE to go online. *Ever*.

I currently have IE6 installed. I see no reason to update it
or patch it. Microsoft breaks rendering compatibility in IE with
every version, so I design all of my webpages to work in what
they call "quirks mode". By leaving off the DOCTYPE tag in HTML
I can indicate to IE that it should use quirks mode rendering.
Every version of IE will then render a webpage as it renders in IE6.
That way I can just design one page for IE and one page for all
other browsers. And I can test it all on my machine with IE6 and
Firefox. So there's really no reason for me to risk the integrity of
the system by even installing IE8.