Which is more secure: XP Pro or 2000?

[ArcticFox]

I've been pondering a couple questions lately, one of which deals with security in the different M$ OS's. We all know that 98/ME are not secure, so which offers more - XP Pro or 2000?

[iNeb]

Depends on how up-2-date you keep it :P

[originel]

if you actually go in and configure both for a security oriented environment they're pretty much identical (especially with all the updates for both). XP is essentiall 2k with more wizards and a new skin, so there is very little difference between them, at least in my experience. without much configuration tho i would guess 2k since it was meant more for a business environment, but that's mostly just an educated guess

[Gait_Keeper]

I guess you can keep up to date and tweak the hell out of either OS, run some 3rd party software ( which may or may not have spyware ) some reg hacks, and stuff.

I'm pretty comforable with my 98se, but not over confident

[Scott Tiger]

This really is too general of a question to get an honest answer. Are you asking how secure they would be in thier default configurations? If so, I'd have to say Win2k since it has a lot fewer services running by defualt.

There are too many variables here to give an honest answer though IMO. As far as I'm concerned their both pretty equal so there's not to much of a point in the debate. What's really important is what third party virus scanner do you use and who make your software firewall and your Spyware scanner as well. Constant patches and those three apps are my first line of defense.

[Telexen]

Theres a lot of stuff going on in Win2k that MS does NOT know about in Win2k/NT boxes compromising security....this excludes XP.

XP is more secure, and has potention to be MUCH more secure after tweaking services.

[Gait_Keeper]

Norton anti-virus, zone alarm, ad-aware, spybot, and i'm behind a router, and before mentioned tweaks and reg hacks

but not over confident, always beware

[ArcticFox]

I assume XP will begin to get more secure, as Microsoft has a history of not supporting older products and forcing people to buy the latest stuff.

What I meant was, after you install all the patches, and leave the settings at their most-secure mode, which OS is harder for hackers and trojans to bust?

[Scott Tiger]

Originally posted by Telexen
Theres a lot of stuff going on in Win2k that MS does NOT know about in Win2k/NT boxes compromising security.

Care to give us a few links supporting this? I'm not arguing with you here; I just want more facts to support what comes across to me as very bold claims.

Thanks...

[Siliconjunkie]

Originally posted by Telexen
Theres a lot of stuff going on in Win2k that MS does NOT know about in Win2k/NT boxes compromising security....this excludes XP.

There are still ALOT of production enviroments running 2k server, care to let us in on what MS doesn't know about?