zlacker

Behind a NAT you're safe even with Win9x. Idk about XP-latest, but you don't want to connect a fresh pre-SP installation right to the uplink cable. I wouldn't do that with any version of windows, even from the "windows server" line.

>>wruza+(OP)
For science!

>>wruza+(OP)
Curiously enough, the youtuber who tried this with windows XP did the same thing with Windows 98 [1]. And it gets hit by strange packets and scans, but that system was fine even when running for a day or two.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssTIx0qm2to

>>tetha+Z3
For a really ancient OS like Windows 98, I'd think >99.99% of exploits out there target newer OSes & simply don't work on Win98. Safety by obscurity.

That said: for every idiot who hooks up a Windows 98 machine to the internet, there might be some other idiot checking whether exploits targeting it, still work. Or exploit kits that sniff an OS, and select exploits to apply accordingly.

Vulnerabilities tend to have a long tail...

>>wruza+(OP)
Do the zombie botnets still search for jurassic OSes to exploit? I feel like connecting the XP system to the Internet might be fine because all the botnets are searching for unpatched Windows 10 systems, maybe 8, 7, but not XP...

>>netsha+zs1
What is the cost for someone running a botnet to probe for old OSs also? They can just take something off the shelf and run it on someone elses machine.

>>Zambyt+1H1
If any random probe targeting Win10 has a 1% success rate, and similar probe targeting XP has a 0.01% success rate, what probes would you let your botnet send out?

Probing for obscure OS that isn't there on the other end = opportunity cost.

>>RetroT+vB2
> what probes would you let your botnet send out?

Both probably. I don't see where the "opportunity cost" is when you can trivially do both. Please describe the opportunity cost in detail; that is what I am asking about.