Spyware, Viruses, & Security forum

General discussion

Need Virus and Firewall protection for Windows 95

I find and as necessary and possible repair older computers that have been thrown out or given to me for distribution to families who cannot afford to purchase or repair them. One of the big problems I have is finding enough computers particularly units with at least a 266mhz processor. The reason I need this minimum is I have problem getting any free-source OS to operate on a lessor specification. However I do have several legal copies of Windows 95 and a few 3.1 but when installing them on a computer with a cpu mhz of less than 266 is trying to find antivirus and firewall protection for them as the related ram memory size is quite often only 46mb to 96mb available. With very little ram memory it is hard to find protection that will allow the OS to run as well with so little resources and my question is does anyone have any suggestions of any combinations of OS's and protection to allow me to use these very old resource challenged units.
I hope I have explained this problem clearly and appreciate any ideas or solutions. Thanks

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Need Virus and Firewall protection for Windows 95
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Need Virus and Firewall protection for Windows 95
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Say what?

In reply to: Need Virus and Firewall protection for Windows 95

Now you know why the computers were thrown out or given away. This is 2007 not 1995. In my opinion a computer today needs at least 1ghz processor,512 MB ram and Xp if possible(Win98SE in a pinch). Plus a decent graphics card. These types of machines aren't worth the effort.

Collapse -
Free AVG 7.5 still supports '95.

In reply to: Need Virus and Firewall protection for Windows 95

As to the firewall, what would need that? DOS based OS's are not susceptable to inbound threats.

Bob

Collapse -
thanks I did not know that

In reply to: Free AVG 7.5 still supports '95.

Not needing a firewall makes things a little easier. Do you have any idea on the ram draw of Avg?

Collapse -
ummmm...

In reply to: thanks I did not know that

I'm not so sure about that. If FAT and FAT32-based operating systems were invulnerable to attack from the outside, why would there be firewalls that support them?

The older computers you're getting a hold of are still good for something. Windows 2000 has minimum requirements of a 133 MHz processor and 32 MB of RAM. Windows ME requires a 150 MHz processor, also with 32 MB of RAM. Windows XP, however, requires a bare minimum of 64 MB and a 300 MHz processor, and even then it will crawl. The other two, however, would work just fine on the systems you're talking about. Happy

When looking for a firewall, you should know what they do. Here's a link to a webpage that talks about different types of firewalls: http://www.ciol.com/content/flavour/netsec/101041101.asp

Personally, I recommend SPI (Stateful Packet Inspection), which happens to be the very same technology industrial hardware firewalls use. Happy In addition, SPI firewalls are the only ones I can see as being viable on an older system, because they're the only ones that aren't constantly getting bigger and more resource hungry. Funny thing is, most people wouldn't have a clue why. Wink

There is one freeware firewall with SPI that will actually work on Windows 95. It's called NetVeda Safety.Net, and it's the same firewall I use. Jetico, another freeware SPI firewall, requires Windows 98 or higher, and will also bombard you with authorization requests in the beginning. Kerio is the easiest to use, but it requires 2000 or XP. In addition, the free version leaves out HIPS, and could be vulnerable to a buffer overflow attack. You can download Safety.Net here: http://www.netveda.com/consumer/safetynet.htm

Note that Safety.Net requires manual configuration, and isn't suitable for novices. It can be set to stay quiet, and not block newly-installed applications, but obviously this comes with a risk. I like it because all the extra controls are right up my alley. Happy

BTW, from what I'm seeing on my machine, AVG uses 3,184 KB (3.11 MB) of RAM, divided among four drivers. There could be more, but I'm not seeing any. Hope this helps!

Collapse -
Ok, here's the challenge.

In reply to: ummmm...

Take a Windows 95 box with that one update to the winsock, no "shares" and put it on the internet. Nothing breaks in.

Why?

I've read your passages about SPI, but tell me why is DOS based Windows so different from Windows NT/2000/XP and it's kin?

Bob

Collapse -
elementary, my dear R. Proffitt

In reply to: Ok, here's the challenge.

Because an operating system based on the FAT file system doesn't have a kernel.

Collapse -
i c your meaning

In reply to: elementary, my dear R. Proffitt

OK. So you're right. Unfortunately, I am still right about the fact that simple firewalls are still getting bulkier. And the whole reason is the botnet epidemic. Simple firewalls are relying entirely on the HIPS, and the HIPS have to get tougher every time the hackers do. SPI firewalls aren't changing, and remain light on system resources.

Anyway, Safety.Net is the only firewall on TechSupportAlert.com that works on Windows 95. MajorGeeks.com has some more, so you can check it out and see what you find. Outpost Free works on 95, but I don't believe it's being supported anymore.

Collapse -
What are the system requirements of Win 98 se

In reply to: ummmm...

are they much different from 95? I mean to do with the processor and ram requirements.

Collapse -
sys requirements

In reply to: What are the system requirements of Win 98 se

For Windows 95, you need a 386DX with 4 MB RAM. For Windows 98 (including SE), you need a 486DX 66 MHz processor, with 16 MB RAM. Note that SE (Second Edition) was the first version of Windows to support USB.

Collapse -
Actually Windows 95 Also Supported USB...

In reply to: sys requirements

...in the later versions (See THIS LINK.... as did Windows 98 first edition machines.. My daughter's first HP computer using W98 "original" came with USB and we utilized it quite a bit. My old office Windows 95 machine (4.00.950C) had USB support although I didn't use USB much then.

Hope this helps.

Grif

Collapse -
While 95 did "USB" it didn't implement streaming USB.

In reply to: Actually Windows 95 Also Supported USB...

For example, USB video cams use the streaming USB protocol and later some scanners. Windows 95 is a shadow of what USB protocols that appeared in 98se.

Bob

Collapse -
(NT) I Agree Entirely.. Win95 Didn't Do USB 'Well' LOL

In reply to: While 95 did "USB" it didn't implement streaming USB.

Collapse -
thanks

In reply to: Actually Windows 95 Also Supported USB...

Very interesting. I'm surprised W98 first edition did not. I stand corrected.

Collapse -
by the way...

In reply to: sys requirements

I was sniffing around a particular website that I like to visit periodically, and I discovered that Tiny Personal Firewall (predecessor to Kerio) is compatible with Windows 95!!! It's easy to use, and uses the SPI standard (it might not have deep packet inspection, but it will do just fine for 9x). You can download it here: http://www.321download.com/LastFreeware/page3.html#Tiny Personal Firewall

Collapse -
Windows 98, 98se and ME shouldn't require a firewall?

In reply to: Free AVG 7.5 still supports '95.

I believe that all of those windows programs are DOS based and should be OK without a firewall, is that a safe assumption?
I see that AVG antivirus will go right back to 95 so I am good to go for an antivirus.
At the moment I am working on a Pentium MMx 200mhz with 4g hdd and 128 mb edo ram and am installing Windows 98SE and am just double checking on what protection you think I should install.
Thanks for all the help

Collapse -
Windows 98, 98se and ME shouldn't require a firewall?

In reply to: Windows 98, 98se and ME shouldn't require a firewall?

This is my understanding.

The w9x series with sharing disabled does not have a hole on the input side.

Unlike XP.

That does not stop a user from doing something dumb and opening a hole.

Fwiw. This w98 machine has been on the net for about 7 yrs sans firewall.

As far as I can tell nothing has got in.

Collapse -
You got. No doors to get in.

In reply to: Windows 98, 98se and ME shouldn't require a firewall?

Or windows either. NT, 2000, XP and so on have "services" that are vulnerable so you gotta have a firewall.

But I'd like to comment that all this could have been avoided (but you knew that) with good code. For instance the Mac, Linux (current versions) can also do with a firewall but here's the fallout -> With Windows needing so much protection when someone goes to use another OS they think that OS needs such as well!

Bob

Collapse -
(NT) thanks to all for all he excellent help and advice

In reply to: You got. No doors to get in.

Collapse -
good code?

In reply to: You got. No doors to get in.

I wouldn't venture to say Windows' vulnerabilities have anything to do with bad code. The fact is that Microsoft commands the market, and the hackers/malware authors and distributors go where they can get the most hits. It's the same issue with IE, Outlook, and Norton AV. The brand that gets the market's attention will invariably be the brand that gets the hackers' attention. It's all relative.

Remember that there are such things as Mac viruses and Linux viruses too. But the only reason to write one of those would be for notoriety, or to say, "See? Macs aren't invincible!" Trust me, if computers running "off-brand" operating systems had enough market to be of any real use to hackers, they would be in just as much trouble as Windows. But they don't, simple as that.

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

SMART HOME

This one tip will help you sleep better tonight

A few seconds are all you need to get a better night's rest.