Evolv-ing Thread

[Rossum]

I've been doing pretty well from keeping Windows updates from my four Windows 10 machines.

Why would you run Windows machines that are obviously connected to the Internet without keeping them updated?

I was perfectly happy to run Windows 7 until late last year, but finally switched to 10 because it's downright irresponsible to use an OS on-line that isn't being kept updated.

 

[CMD-Ky]

Why would you run Windows machines that are obviously connected to the Internet without keeping them updated?

I was perfectly happy to run Windows 7 until late last year, but finally switched to 10 because it's downright irresponsible to use an OS on-line that isn't being kept updated.

I backup the system and the files daily around 6.00PM. I do tso at this frequency so that if Win 10 does one of its updates and it does not work out, I restart using my backup program and go back a day or so. Knocking on my head as I have no other wood near by, I have not had to use it. I did test it once.

PS: I like your new signature.

For fun and laughter, I also have "System Restore" set just in case but i don't expect or depend on it to save my bacon.

 

[BillW50]

Why would you run Windows machines that are obviously connected to the Internet without keeping them updated?

Because along time ago, someone said they don't update. I said that is crazy. How often do you get malware, I asked? He said never. Well I hated to be one of those guys who claims something isn't so without having any experience myself. So since I already had dozens of machines anyway and no matter what happened, I could always quickly recover from backups if I ever did get malware. So half received updates and the other half didn't. I totally expected to tell him the ones without updates ended up with malware.

Well the group that received updates became less and less stable and slower. The group that received no updates were reliable as hell and I never got any malware. I ran the experiment for years and that is how it continued to work. So I stopped updating everything. What is important is to get a stable version and then stop. And only update and patch bugs that only effect you. And if there is a new feature you like, then grab that one too.

Every time you update, you run a risk of drivers and applications breaking. And I wasn't being terrorized by malware, but rather I was being terrorized by Microsoft. Same thing happens today with Windows 10 forced updates. I bet updates have cost people in the trillions of lost time and productivity. Youtube and Google has countless of horror stories of updates that went wrong.

I was perfectly happy to run Windows 7 until late last year, but finally switched to 10 because it's downright irresponsible to use an OS on-line that isn't being kept updated.

You know what's funny? The last people on the planet who knows the least about security are the ones that people trust the most. Microsoft has constantly been hacked into. Remember when even the Windows source code was stolen from Microsoft's own machines?

So if you can't trust Microsoft for security, who can you trust? Many. There are many wonderful companies who puts out security software and are on the ball with the latest up to the minute knowledge of new vulnerabilities. And they have patches within minutes of a new discovery. While it takes Microsoft a month, or months, and sometimes years to finally getting around to plugging it. One IE hole had taken Microsoft 17 years to fix. Rather those other more competent people are out there were blocking many of those vulnerabilities from day one. Anything coming into your computer from any port or drive, has to be first cleared by your antivirus software.

As for running un-updated machines, but with good third party antivirus software, I still run one XP SP2 on the net 12 hours a day, 5 days a week. And a Windows 8.1 is running at least 4 hours a day, 365 days a year. Not a lick of any problems from them. I just turn them on daily and put them to work. They run flawlessly. Which is unlike most Windows 10 machines. Where you turn one on one day and when you really need it and up on the screen to your horror it says 1% complete. Then no matter what you were going to do, is now put on hold. Sorry, I am not putting up with that nonsense anymore. Nor does very large corporations. As some are still running Windows 3.1 for Pete's sake. But if you want to update, by all means do.

 

[tiburonfirst]

once again i'm stymied why would i get such a message? i didn't instigate a thing, promise!

''Your computer's IP has been blocked because it was identified as the source of abusive or illegal activity on the website you are attempting to access.
If you think that you are receiving this message in error please send e-mail to support@highwirepress.com. Include the IP address and/or a screenshot of the error page in the e-mail.


Client IP - 107.77.204.14

Request ID - 581f3d509af2f102''

this is where i wanted to go

Fatal toxicity of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with metformin in mice

 

[Rossum]

once again i'm stymied

Works for me. Check your PMs.

 

[awsum140]

I got there with no problem, and thanks for the link.

 

[Punk In Drublic]

once again i'm stymied why would i get such a message? i didn't instigate a thing, promise!

''Your computer's IP has been blocked because it was identified as the source of abusive or illegal activity on the website you are attempting to access.
If you think that you are receiving this message in error please send e-mail to support@highwirepress.com. Include the IP address and/or a screenshot of the error page in the e-mail.


Client IP - 107.77.204.14

Request ID - 581f3d509af2f102''

this is where i wanted to go

Fatal toxicity of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with metformin in mice

Your IP is dynamic, your ISP will refresh your IP based on a schedule they have chosen (no idea what that may be). Today that maybe your IP – last week it could have been someone else's

 

[tiburonfirst]

Works for me. Check your PMs.

thanks!

 

[tiburonfirst]

Your IP is dynamic, your ISP will refresh your IP based on a schedule they have chosen (no idea what that may be). Today that maybe your IP – last week it could have been someone else's

well, thanks to rossum i could read and since the only way i can get online, except for dial-up, is with att cellular there is probably not much i can do
first time though i ran into this problem

 

[Punk In Drublic]

Malware is malicious code. It can take advantage of a vulnerability, but it is not dependent on one. Vulnerabilities are faults with in hardware, OS or even applications (to name a few). Equifax was not breached with Malware, there was a vulnerability with their third party web application from Struts. Struts informed Equifax of the issue, but Equifax delayed the needed update and was hacked when vulnerable.

Vulnerabilities are discovered in many different ways. There are 3rd party security teams that test for vulnerabilities, then inform the developers of said hardware/software/OS of such problems through private communication. Unfortunately this information can be leaked, and in the wrong hands, hackers will hit anything and everything to find systems with such vulnerabilities – this is what happened to Equifax. Vulnerabilities are also found by the developers, either through in house testing or through error reporting. And of course, vulnerabilities are found by clever hackers.

No OS is void of vulnerabilities. Hundreds are found per OS, per year. Vulnerabilities are set into specific classifications, DOS, Code Execution, Bypass, Privilege Gain etc. And are ranked from 1 to 10, 1 being very low, and 10 being an extreme threat. The severity of the vulnerabilities will determine how quickly they are patched or corrected. Low risk vulnerabilities are usually patched with scheduled updates. High risk vulnerabilities are patched immediately. A vulnerability does not necessarily mean someone can hijack your PC – it could prevent memory leaks, poorly coded apps from corrupting files of just fixing bad coding within the OS thus preventing crashes. Given the complexity of these machines, the list is pretty much endless.

A virus checker will take care of Malware, it will not take care of vulnerabilities.

Windows does not break apps or drivers with updates. Apps and drivers become (in some cases) incompatible due to certain updates. It is the responsibility of the developers of said apps/drivers to ensure their software is complaint. The update may in fact be preventing said incompatible app/driver from exploiting a vulnerability such as a memory leak.

I’ve been involved with vulnerability management, and have seen a good deal of exploits. And being within the industry, heard some pretty horrific (although clever) stories. Such as personal computers being hijacked and used to attack enterprise networks. No one is safe, but keeping your OS up to date you are reducing risk.

 

[tiburonfirst]

keeping your OS up to date

don't stand a chance to do otherwise with MS

 

[BillW50]

A virus checker will take care of Malware, it will not take care of vulnerabilities.

It can be likened to the coronavirus. Human skin isn't vulnerable to the virus if it isn't damaged. So no vulnerability there. Although eyes, nose, and throat are. Not much you can do to fix these vulnerabilities. Although you could develop antibodies (although that requires an infection), but all the virus has to do is to mutate and now your vulnerable once again. You could use drugs, but that isn't ideal either.

Or you can protect yourself like the antivirus way. By using protective gear, so the virus can't reach your vulnerabilities. Same idea with your computer.

Patching computer vulnerabilities... well something like Windows which contains millions (and maybe billions by now) lines of code, it's virtually impossible. There is no hope of ever becoming successful. So why keep digging? Just use protective gear known as an antivirus checker and be done with it.

 

[Punk In Drublic]

It can be likened to the coronavirus. Human skin isn't vulnerable to the virus if it isn't damaged. So no vulnerability there. Although eyes, nose, and throat are. Not much you can do to fix these vulnerabilities. Although you could develop antibodies (although that requires an infection), but all the virus has to do is to mutate and now your vulnerable once again. You could use drugs, but that isn't ideal either.

Or you can protect yourself like the antivirus way. By using protective gear, so the virus can't reach your vulnerabilities. Same idea with your computer.

Patching computer vulnerabilities... well something like Windows which contains millions (and maybe billions by now) lines of code, it's virtually impossible. There is no hope of ever becoming successful. So why keep digging? Just use protective gear known as an antivirus checker and be done with it.

Anti virus does not prevent vulnerabilities from being exploited. Should malware be written to exploit a vulnerability, the antivirus may prevent that. I say may because the anti virus has to know the malicious code it is trying to block. Otherwise it is useless! The largest spreads of malware was due to the fact the code was unknown at the time by these security/AV firms. Experts (and not marketing teams) claim, AV software is approx 40 to 50% effective. Hackers claim they are much less effective.

As I stated above, Equifax was exploited through a software vulnerability, No AV could have prevented that. Spectre is a hardware vulnerability, no AV could have prevented an exploit.

Also as mentioned, vulnerabilities do not have to be from a remote exploit. They can come from within the computer. Software/drivers could cause a memory leak due to poor coding. Again, no AV can prevent that. In such a case, the OS patches the memory leak, but the developers of said software/drivers must also correct their code.

Correcting vulnerabilities is a matter of risk reduction. Equifax did not patch their vulnerability in a timely fashion, therefor they were exposed. And that was not a Windows based machine. You’re right, it can be an impossible task, but the goal is to try and keep computers safe and operating trouble free. Giving up and not patching vulnerabilities is no different than you walking into a room full of infected people without any protective gear – if we want to use the Covid-19 analogy.

 

[Alexander Mundy]

Does Microsoft still use the "ring" architecture? Been out of the game too long to know. But it wasn't that difficult back in the day to hitch a ride on a driver and drop your code below the level the OS or malware software even knew it was there. Back before that era I took control of the college 370 in assembler by simply popping my psw off the stack, modifying it to sys admin privilege, and pushing it back. Easy peasy. (No laws against it back then before I get frowny faces)

 

[BillW50]

Anti virus does not prevent vulnerabilities from being exploited. Should malware be written to exploit a vulnerability, the antivirus may prevent that. I say may because the anti virus has to know the malicious code it is trying to block. Otherwise it is useless! The largest spreads of malware was due to the fact the code was unknown at the time by these security/AV firms. Experts (and not marketing teams) claim, AV software is approx 40 to 50% effective. Hackers claim they are much less effective.

As I stated above, Equifax was exploited through a software vulnerability, No AV could have prevented that. Spectre is a hardware vulnerability, no AV could have prevented an exploit.

Also as mentioned, vulnerabilities do not have to be from a remote exploit. They can come from within the computer. Software/drivers could cause a memory leak due to poor coding. Again, no AV can prevent that. In such a case, the OS patches the memory leak, but the developers of said software/drivers must also correct their code.

Correcting vulnerabilities is a matter of risk reduction. Equifax did not patch their vulnerability in a timely fashion, therefor they were exposed. And that was not a Windows based machine. You’re right, it can be an impossible task, but the goal is to try and keep computers safe and operating trouble free. Giving up and not patching vulnerabilities is no different than you walking into a room full of infected people without any protective gear – if we want to use the Covid-19 analogy.

But fixing computer vulnerabilities is like fixing a bucket with a bunch of holes it in. Sure you could patch the holes. But your patches are also vulnerable to leaks. So what good is patching your holey bucket with patches that is just as vulnerable as the bucket?

Wouldn't it be easier to use a bucket without holes to start with? Now let's compare a non-infected coronavirus city to a bucket without holes. People inside the city are not infected and won't be, unless someone from the outside who is comes in. So before they are allowed to come in, they must be tested and quarantined. With computers, we call this sandboxing. Same idea. If it turns out they are infected, no harm to the city or computer at all. So they either needs to get well or leave. Same with a computer.

You mentioned that vulnerabilities can come from within. So true and the same with our imaginary city. If it is a problem, they need to be addressed. And I am a big supporter here. If I come across a vulnerability on my machines say a display issue. I'll check to see if there is a known fix for it. Either the OEM or a MS will have a patch for it. Thus install it and done. Same with the city. Say someone breaks an arm. Well patch the arm (cast) and done.

But forced updates from Microsoft is like putting everybody's arm in a cast. Come on, seriously? Why do all computers need all of those patches that they will never need? You're just making the city worse off by putting a cast on everybody's arm. Same is true of Windows updates. Like I don't need it and worse, the change might make my stable computer into a more vulnerable one. Which is often the case. It is just insane thinking to me.

Although I do see the benefit to MS and software companies. As for one, it is easier for them to fix problems if everyone is on the same build. Same for the software companies. Plus it is job security since the task of patching will never end. Like trying to use your leaky bucket. Patching it is a never ending job.

But making things easier for the manufacture isn't the goal here. MS works for me and not the other way around. I am also not their I pay beta tester either. That has to stop! I am just not playing that game. I bought it so I own it. End of story.

 

[BillW50]

Does Microsoft still use the "ring" architecture?

Yup. Although it doesn't mean much when you find a vulnerability that takes you from guest level to admin level through an open window. If everybody plays by the rules it works nicely. So when it works, it works nicely. As it does make the OS much harder to crash for example.

 

[BillW50]

Experts (and not marketing teams) claim, AV software is approx 40 to 50% effective. Hackers claim they are much less effective.

Yeah I don't know if I buy that one. And having one called an expert doesn't carry as much weight as it used to. Like for example the FDA are supposed to be experts. Yet they believe a coil contains nicotine.

Correcting vulnerabilities is a matter of risk reduction.

At a cost of creating new ones. If it gained something, it would get better overtime. But the truth is it hasn't over the years. It is still only good for job security. Take for example, in the beginning with browsers, they were notoriously leaky. Today they still are leaky.

 

[dwcraig1]

My wife told me tonight that one of her coworkers received her $1200 stimulus check today. I have been watching for mine.

 

[Blitzdonlife]

Great info, I'll be checking too.

 

[tiburonfirst]