Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am looking into having a system with the most update/safe from security aspect in Windows OS
My question is the following:
If the OS for instance is Windows Server 2003+ Latest SP+ hot fixes, is it considered as safe as I can get with Microsoft OR it is better to use a newer OS e.g. 2008?
I mean does the OS version make a difference concerning security holes if MS continues to support it?

Note: My question is regarding MS Windows and not securing a system in general

share|improve this question

Server 2003 mainstream support ended almost a year ago. Reference

I would not be implementing any new Windows Server 2003 installations unless absolutely necessary.

share|improve this answer
The extended support ends in 2015 as specified in your link. The SP support ends in 2009. Not sure what is the difference. – user65971 Jul 8 '11 at 14:17
See #3 on this – Moab Jul 8 '11 at 14:41
So security updates are covered up to 2015 if I understand correctly. So for a short-term installation is Windows 2003 a bad choice? – user65971 Jul 8 '11 at 21:21

I'd go with at least 2008. There are a boat load of new security features that showed up in that five year span. The biggest change would be ASLR and BitLocker. On top of that you got UAC for those who still surf the net using an admin account. . .

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .