Subject: Re: Windows 10. Horrible!
On Thursday, 2 November 2017 14:17:42 UTC, Mayayana wrote:
> "Whisky-dave"<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote
> | trouble is you can't keep XP updated withoutn moving on past XP to windows
> | Sitting at a machine running XP with it's latest updates isn't protection
> that is up to date.
> Which comes full circle to where this started:
> Security updates are nice, but only a small part
> of computer security.
They are probbaly the biggest part of computer security other than padlocking yuor computer to a
wall which we used to do here.
> The latest version of Windows
> is far less safe than careful use of an old version.
Not true, as was seen with wannacry .
> Our own tax dollars are being spent by the NSA
> to figure out new 0-day hacks.
> hackers hack into the NSA and make them public.
> Federal tax dollars are funding the likes of WannaCry.
where did you get that info from ?
> It's not oging to get better.
Not if peole ignore warnings and stick to out of date software.
> There's a lot of money
> involved. At some point it may be that *all*
> money is involved.
I doubt that.
>(Nospam thinks he's going to
> be safe by letting Apple or Google handle his
far safer than letting XP handle it.
Of course you probbaly not aware that NO Apple product was 'infected by wannacry"
> The most basic issue is not about buying
> whatever Microsoft or Apple say you need this
Apple does charge yuo for security updates adn I donlt think MS does either, you just buy a new OS.
> The most basic issue is expressed by David
> Taylor's position: People want functionality and
> convenience with no risk and zero effort.
So what's new there that applies to just about anything ?
> want to buy stuff online, do our banking, adjust
> our home thermometer.... The "Internet of Things"
> is becoming a new,
I know there's a course on the subject running outside my office.
It's not realyl a computer thing it about embeded devices rather than the computer and its OS.
> vast area of security risks,
> with things like hackable front door locks.
Might be why most still prefer a physical key.
> are they hackable? Because people think it's
> clever to unlock your house from your cellphone.
Most don't do that as yet.
> Tech-mania is out of control. We've already created
> a dangerously brittle society, dependent on insecure
> computing, and there's no sign of letup.
Ys I remmerb the planes falling out ofm the sky and the world's food supply going to the wrong
places when the Y2K bug hit.
My casio watch had the 'bug' the world still spun though and I didn;lt notice anything too bad
> On the Internet side, Internet businesses want
> a smooth way to sell to you. And ad-supported
> companies want an easy way to spy on you.
So, some things never change.
even Queen Elizabeth 1st had spies working for her in the 1550s and thre abouts.
> No one wants even a tiny bit of effort to be
Again what's new.
> It's denial on a massive scale. The main
> reason young people have switched to Macs is
> because they believe they can ignore security
> issues if they have a Mac.
Some people think a god created the earth in 6 days so what.
Some believe they are safer with Macs because far fewer people using macs have problems with Macs
than they do with PCs.
And when anyone loks into it they find that generally speaking it's true.
> They don't even
> consider whether they'll live online. That's a given.
> They just want to know how to do it without having
> to think.
Yep any computer that can run word is OK and we all know how many PC users claim that yuo can;t get
word for a Mac, they forget it came out on the Mac first.
> But increasingly there's money to be made
> by hacking them.
Same with anything fronm credit cards to cars.
> The answer is very simple, undeniable, and
> yet we're all in denial:
Speak for yuorself, having a reliable OS that is kept up to date IS the best way to go. Sticking
with a 20+ year old OS is not a sensible idea.
>There's no security possible
> online as long as executable code is supported.
> If webpages are HTML and CSS it can be made safe.
what do you mean by safe.
> Those are just graphical layout instructions.
And theres no way a graphic layout can ask you for money, wake up.
> we want the convenience of executable code running
> in the browser and databases linked on the server
> side. No one's happy with the Internet anymore.
Most people are happy with it.
> We want interactive TV with unlimited fulfillment
> of impulses.
That's been the case since man worked out how to wank, and women how to complain
> You go to buy a widget and you're sent to a
> dozen websites -- to process your credit card,
Mine goes to 2 or 3 but so what.
> get fonts, show you ads, spy on you...
Have you got windows in your house then I suggested yuo board them up.
> Many of
> those sites link you to other sites. Hackers buying
> ads has become a common way to attack your
which is why you need up to date software which keeps track of these sorts of things.
> The webpage you see is now actually
> a software program, with input from dozens of actors
> that you not only never visited.
Only if yuo are running an insecure OS like XP.
>You've never even
> heard of them. And none of them cares very much
> about your security.
Which is why the OS writers issue patches and why you should update.
> That scenario is actually fairly recent. The past
> couple of years.
Another good reason to update and not rely on stonehenge as a firewall.
> It's changing very fast. Webpages
> used to be a few KB of read-only data and security
> meant that data was restricted to the connection
> between you and the website you were visiting.
> (Cookies were designed not to be readable by 3rd
> parties. That was considered common sense at the
> time.) Now you're in a demolition derby and you got
> anti-lock brakes by buying Windows 10. Or maybe
> you got special bumpers and airbags by buying a Mac.
> But the context is still a demolition derby.
I've yet to be affected or infected, but then again I do update regually.