On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:47:49 -0400, Borne Aching wrote:
> "ray" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:04:35 -0400, Borne Aching wrote:
>>
>>> "ray" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:25:16 -0400, Borne Aching wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Alias" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:gpipit$1gk$...
>>>>>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/159238/
>>>> virulent_worm_exploits_missing_patches.html?
>>>> loomia_ow=t0:a41:g29:r2:c0.098293:b22758322
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Which an up to date Windows PC is protected from. Having Windows
>>>>> Updates on fixes this.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but should you really HAVE to - and I wonder how many folks
>>>> actually DO.
>>>
>>>
>>> Have To ?
>>> No, the morons who got the worm didn't have to.
>>
>> OK, let me rephrase for you - should you really HAVE to in order to be
>> safe - and I wonder how many folks actually DO.
>>
>>
> Do you update linux to keep it safe?
> If not, your already hacked.
That would be you're instead of your - geez BASIC grammar. I keep them
somewhat up to date, but I certainly don't bust a gut on it. I have no
reason to believe that any of my machines have been hacked. Once every
few years I run a scanner just to check - never turned up anything.
>
>
>>> You act like some physical labor is involved to use Windows Updates.
>>
>> Not at all. It is a little tough, though, if all you have is dial-up -
>> for one example.
>
> If all you have is dial-up...the worm will time-out! LOL.
Didn't say I had, but lots of people still do.
>
> I had dialup for eight years...it sucked, and I ran without an AV most
> of the time.
I have had DSL for several years and always run without AV - I've never
installed one - see comment above.
> Never a problem....contrary to the 45 second rule.