From: Adam Flinton 

John Beckett wrote:
> adam flinton  wrote in message
> news::
>
>>I keep my Win2K behind a firewall. I run virus scans etc. I have not nor
>>do I intend to install a single SP.
>
>
> This is a really bad idea.
>
> I don't want to join a religious war, but I feel I should point out that a
> service pack can do all sorts of good things that you may really need. It
> is true that the "phone home" stuff is intensely irritating. However,
> being without a SP is likely to be more irritating in the end.
>
> Example: If you were to install a default Windows 2000 Server and allow
> port 80 traffic to it, then the computer could be hacked and used to
> attack your local network. You need the current service pack to avoid
> nonsense like this. A firewall is not enough.
>

Nope.

A) It ain't a server. Yes I run development servers on it (db2, Oracle,
various j2EE servers etc).

B) How does stuff get in & out? the vast bulk via http requests &
email. So I use moz to make sure that it is more difficult for the people
on the outside.

C) From the outside, the route ends at the adsl router/hub thingy excepting
http (80) & ssh (22) which are pointed at my linux laptop/home server
which does the email serving/apache etc & is running only the services
I need an inet server to run.

So...all the things I need it's doing right now....I don't much use
IE/OE/WMP....the machine is pretty much invisible to the outside world so
why do I need a fixpack?

With NT there were a number of progs which required a certain fp (quite a
few needed 6a if they were written for Win2K) however up till now all the
docs for the progs I use just say Win2K.

Adam

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4