securing xp

Discussion in 'Windows Desktop Systems' started by Perris Calderon, Nov 17, 2004.

  1. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
  2. ThePatriot

    ThePatriot -=[BOHICA!]=- Political User

    Messages:
    1,742
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Nice find perris! I can direct some of our customers there. I'm sure you can imagine how many pc's we get back in here loaded with crap.
     
  3. Kr0m

    Kr0m Moderator

    Messages:
    1,390
    Location:
    Turtle Island
    Nice find, thanks!
     
  4. jcheng

    jcheng OSNN One Post Wonder

    Messages:
    9
    nice site, a lot of good articles there and the securing xp article is very thorough!

    thanks!
     
  5. NetRyder

    NetRyder Tech Junkie Folding Team

    Messages:
    13,256
    Location:
    New York City
    Excellent find, perris. [​IMG]

    With all the threads that keep cropping up related to security and privacy issues, I was planning to write out a detailed post about how you can keep your Windows box secure at some point. It's really not that hard, and Windows can be as secure and stable as any other OS, despite all the bad press that it gets. In any case, that article is much more detailed than anything I would have had the time to write. Worthy of some rep points, no doubt.
     
  6. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    not too many stickys in security, so I'm gonna stick this for a while...anyone is welcome to take it down when they like or if we come up with something better.
     
  7. Gowcra

    Gowcra iPod man!

    Messages:
    40
    Nice guide, I wouldnt use it because im more eXPerienced but some of my clients might want to take look.

    Great find!!
     
  8. _kC_

    _kC_ Moderator

    Messages:
    514
    nice, i like the idea of using ipx instead of tcpip on lan.. great find
     
  9. j79zlr

    j79zlr Glaanies script monkey Political User

    Messages:
    2,725
    Location:
    Chicago
    Personally the IPX stuff was the only thing I disagreed with in the whole article.
     
  10. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    how so?
     
  11. _kC_

    _kC_ Moderator

    Messages:
    514
    yep how so? im gonna image all my box's and try it out over the weekend.. although im sure im already secure enuff behing spi firewall, nat :)

    whats the bad points about ipx local network? any difference in speeds?
     
  12. j79zlr

    j79zlr Glaanies script monkey Political User

    Messages:
    2,725
    Location:
    Chicago
    because IPX is an outdated protocol and will probably be phased out sometimes soon. You need to have TCP enabled for internet access, no reason to add the overhead of another protocol.
     
  13. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    the ipx is just for the local network, it doesn't matter if it's phased out globally.

    how does the overhead manifest?
     
  14. j79zlr

    j79zlr Glaanies script monkey Political User

    Messages:
    2,725
    Location:
    Chicago
    You have to add services to deal with IPX, TCP/IP is default in XP. AFAIK IPX isn't available in the 64-bit XP edition, which makes me think it will be gone by Longhorn.

    From what I understand, and I could be wrong, IPX is more unreliable because no ACK's are sent; meaning that the sender never acknowledges that the packet it received by the recipient, as is done with TCP. Also, IPX is chatty, sending tons of packets into your network, which can slow your network down because of packet collisions. I have no statistical evidence of this, but I'm sure there is some.
     
  15. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    ah..makes sense,,,needs to be experimented with to find out if the overhead is too high a price

    as far as it becoming obsolete, that doesn't matter, since the network that would be using it would phase it out when it became neccessary

    thanx for the info
     
  16. TweakHound

    TweakHound OSNN One Post Wonder

    Messages:
    1
    Thanks for all the nice comments on the article and thanks to Perris for posting it. :)
    I'll keep an eye out here for comments, suggestions, etc.

    About IPX/SPX:
    I think it's reputation for being chatty is overblown. Yes it will add some traffic to your network but are you really using so much bandwidth that you can't afford a few packets now and again?
    IPX/SPX is not available on XP 64-bit (I don't think we've heard the last of this), nor is appletalk, netbios, netbeui...
    http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prka_fea_tfiu.asp


    http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/hnw_nohost_computerw.mspx
     
    Perris Calderon likes this.
  17. _kC_

    _kC_ Moderator

    Messages:
    514
    switched my network over to it today, havnt had any problems, speeds pretty much the same, processor use i cant notice any difference, seems to be working just the same
     
  18. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    your memory useage is probably a little higher though...maybe 3 mb's I think

    thanx for reporting back
     
  19. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    Great to see you tweakhound!!!

    please feel free to put your home page in your signature, and stick around a while