On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 17:53 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > Tim wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 08:03 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > >> It was more than a year ago when I attempted to install a Windows 2000 > >> system directly connected to the internet. In fact, before the system > >> was fully updated with security patches it had been compromised. I > >> didn't time it, but it certainly was less than 30 minutes. > > > > That happened to a friend of mine. It was something like four seconds > > after connecting to his ISP he got infected, despite my warnings about > > putting a firewall on first. He didn't think he'd need it, he had > > anti-virus software installed, and thought nothing could happen that > > quickly, despite my assurances to the contrary. > > > > To make matters worse, he couldn't remove the infection - his anti-virus > > software didn't stop the infection, and wouldn't remove it. So he > > reformatted and re-installed. An hour or so later he reconnected, and > > got infected just the same way, and in just a few seconds, and couldn't > > undo the damage (the virus was better at protecting itself than Windows > > was). I nearly fell off the chair laughing at him. > > As a side note, the damage was irreversible here as well. Reformat, > reinstall. Interesting exercise nonetheless. I'm not sure why anyone sane > person would have done it a second time. :-) ---- Actually, anyone who has set up Windows 2003 Server in the last year has noticed that this shouldn't happen anymore because the firewall is automatic during initial setup phase and user is clearly aware that during initial setup phase, this firewall remains until updates are all installed or the user opts out. Let's give Microsoft a little credit (not much, but a little). Craig -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
