Follow up Question Was: Re: Virtal Machine preferences?

[Derek Broughton]

Smoot Carl-Mitchell wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 15:53 -0700, Patton Echols wrote:
>> On 09/16/2009 10:19 AM, Chris G wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:55:59AM -0500, Preston Hagar wrote:
>> >   
>> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Patton Echols <p.echols at comcast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>     
>> >>> Thanks Derek, and everyone else who replied.  The Windows
>> >>> applications I will use are not properly "internet" applications, but
>> >>> get grumpy if you
>> >>> "unplug the wire."  I guess I'll search around for a lightweight
>> >>> scanner.
>> >>>
>> >>>       
>> >> I know this might be almost blasphemous to say on a Linux mailing
>> >> list, but a properly updated Windows install really isn't as
>> >> susceptible to vira (thank Amedee) as a lot of people think.  I run
>> >> 
> 
> I concur.  I have run a Windows XP virtual machine using VMware and have
> never been infected in 8 years.  Part of the reason is I have it running
> on a NATed network which means the box is essentially invisible to the
> typical network based attacks.  I also do not run the most common virus
> vector software such as an email client on the virtual machine.  That
> helps a lot.

I agree too, even though I pointed out that clamav wouldn't work if it had 
its own connection to the 'net.  My Windows VM runs a NATted connection, and 
even runs Outlook Express, but OE only _sends_ mail, and the browser is used 
_only_ for testing my own websites.  I don't run a virus scanner on it at 
all.
-- 
derek