Had a chuckle at that one MB. Of course you are correct, internet speed has very little to do with it. I would say quite the contrary; most modern routers provide an extra layer of protection, plus security patches/updates will be downloaded and applied more quickly and more frequently via DSL.

There is an old school opinion that DSL is less secure because it's always connected. And while that may have some credence, I believe it is so unlikely for a machine to become infected without any user interaction it is not really worthy of consideration. In fact, I've never heard of a machine becoming infected in this way, every infection I have come across has been initiated in some way by the user. Yes, a seemingly benign download can then create an outgoing connection and download malicious script, which will be quicker and easier via DSL. But it's still going to happen on dial--up as well, sooner or later.

Another theory as to why dial-up may be more secure is that 'large' malicious files take much longer to download and thus allow more time for intervention. Again, there's some credence in that argument but; malware sourced via downloading large files is just one way for a machine to become infected. There are literally dozens of alternative methods, many of which involve a simple click and tiny scripts that take nigh on immediate affect. Plus, of course, any AV worth it's salt will identify the malware almost instantaneously, so file size and speed are not really contributing factors.

Overall, the benefits provided by DSL, security-wise, far outweigh any minor negatives. I've said it many times over MB; security starts between the ears and if that area is vacant, there's very little anyone or anything can do to help.

Chad - Can you please give an example of how a computer can be hacked while connected to DSL, and with no browser running nor any other user initiated software running?

Also, you say "unprotected" computer. I was assuming we are talking about a machine here that has all normal security measures/software installed and running. Any "unprotected" computer is bound to get infected regardless of what system is used to connect to the net. Yes, DSL will likely speed up the process but a system on dial-up will also eventually be similarly affected - it's simply a matter of timing.

Do you not think that the extra protection afforded by modern routers plus the ability to maintain security updates/patches much more efficiently makes DSL the safer option overall?

Jim Hillier said

I've been running Windows machines for more than 12 years. I do not bulk up with security software, all I ever install is your basic free AV plus one other product, something like Threatfire or more recently Windows Defender - that's it! I always leave my machines on and connected 24/7, except for rare occasions when we are away for an extended period or if storms are around. In all that time none of my machines have ever been hacked or infected while idle. So, if someone were to say to me that leaving a PC permanently connected via DSL is dangerous, my reply would be...'so you're telling me that, after some 100,000 hours of leaving my machine connected and experiencing zero issues, I've just been lucky?' - I don't think so!

It's not good practice. I'll use my server as an example...

My server runs 24/7. It also logs all connections, what they do (or attempt to do), and where they are from. This server has a direct internet connection as certain ports are forwarded directly to it.
Every day I see dozens, and some times hundreds, of attempts to hack this box using various exploits.

My other computers are not "directly" connected to the internet due to NAT of my router.

A dial-up user (and a DSL user without a router) is directly connected to the internet and is susceptible to these scans.

Secondly: After reading your first response I clean installed Windows 7 on an older machine I had floating around. I did not install any security software, in fact I did not install any extra software at all. I then connected that machine via DSL and just left it sitting idle. It has now been 30 hours and no sign of any hacking nor infections. I guarantee that situation will not change if I leave it until the end of week, or even the end of the month - any takers?

Is it connected to the router or directly to your modem and does your modem also include a router? If it's connected to a router it really isn't direct on the internet.

My thought process is that someone on dial-up is very much less likely to download updates and service packs leaving them open to all sorts of security holes. Just think of an XP machine that hasn't had updates in the past 10 years and it won't have a firewall! They may not be connected 24/7, but could be on long enough to catch something, and would be more susceptible from the get go.

Just throwing my .02 cents into the mix.

I only used my Server as an example as it is on 24/7/365 and it has the ability to log these intrusions. In all reality it is just a computer running Windows 2008 R2 (basically Win 7) and before that 2003.

FWIW, my father (on DSL) had a modem only connection for years until about 6 months ago when his provider was bought out and the new owners gave him a new modem/router combination. I, obviously, didn't let him run without a router, but the ISP would have.

We assume protected computers, but in reality we should always assume unprotected computers. I've seen many missing AV, Firewalls, hundreds of updates - you name it - even for broadband users..

A dial-up user is less likely to have updates, AV, or a native/3rd party firewall. No way in hell is a dial-up user going to spend 24 hours without their phone line while their computer is downloading a 500MB service pack at 3KB.

That said, I'm not saying either dial-up or DSL is safer, but speed is more important. You can change your computer's safety level, but you can not control how much bandwidth is available to you. Both services are vulnerable. The ability to easily add a router to a broadband connection, or the inclusion of a router in the modem, negates that negative for broadband.

In closing, I believe broadband wins every time. More content. Less waiting. More likely to accept updates. More likely to have security software/functionality.