From: Whisky-dave <>
Subject: Re: Windows 10. Horrible!
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id v42mr4958375qtg.59.1509714633892;
Fri, 03 Nov 2017 06:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by with SMTP id u140mr515677vkb.2.1509714633706; Fri,
03 Nov 2017 06:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 06:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <otggfv$j07$>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=; posting-account=Fal3rgoAAABua4brvRuRwdmPfigIDi6x
References: <>
<ota72v$a08$> <>
<> <otbah6$10c3$>
<otbuml$qkc$> <otchr5$v4h$>
<otcslc$do7$> <>
<otf9e1$1kd$> <> <otggfv$j07$>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Windows 10. Horrible!
From: Whisky-dave <>
Injection-Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 13:10:33 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1032522431
X-Received-Bytes: 7933
Print Article
Forward Article
On Friday, 3 November 2017 01:24:23 UTC, Mayayana  wrote:
> "Eric Stevens"<> wrote
> | >  Which comes full circle to where this started:
> | >Security updates are nice, but only a small part
> | >of computer security. The latest version of Windows
> | >is far less safe than careful use of an old version.
> |
> | But the careful use of the latest version is better than the careful
> | use of an old version.
>    Maybe a little bit. But the risks are different. Not
> all the same vulnerabilities apply to both. 

Of course not.

> And are you
> careful? do you disable networking and either disable
> script or at least use NoScript to limit it? 

No I use a Mac I don't need to take the extra steps you take running out of date software.

>Do you avoid
> using risky Microsoft and Adobe products? If not then
> you're not being careful.

The only MS products that I use are at work where the IT department are reasonsible for such things
NOT me. 
I've only been 'hacked once and that was on the PC some BOT got installed on quite a number of PCs
in the depratment they were sending out packets for a denial or service or something. Only PCs had
this problem, those running OS X and linux machines were infected.

>   The top 6 vulnerabilities last year were connected
> with Flash. One was in Windows, one in Silverlight
> and 2 in IE. The worst was an IE bug. The Windows
> bug example I've seen used a rigged Powerpoint
> file. So all of the top 10 bugs were avoidable by
> not using IE, Silverlight, Flash, or MS Office. That's
> pretty much what the situation was 10 years ago,
> or even 15 years ago. Flash, Adobe Acrobat, Java,
> MS Office and IE were the big risks and still are.

You don't need any of them on a Mac.
Most things don;t need flash use HTML5 .
I think java is disable on macs as default, don't need acrobat either preview read virtually all
PDFs , don;t need office either.
And no on eshould really be using IE.
if yuo wish to use 10-15 year-old software you are at fr more risk than someone using up-to-date
software, wannacry should have taught you that.

>   And the vast majority of those attacks also require
> javascript.

Disabled on the majority of Macs for that reason, but you can enable it if you wish, just like you
can leave your front door open and unlocked when you leave for work or whatever.

 >It's all about allowing executable code
> like script to run from the Internet. (Though with MS
> Office it's usually about opening a rigged file on
> your computer.)

See macs don't run MS OS, and office on the mac won't do anything with a .exe file.

>    For over 15 years the basic advice to stay safe has
> been pretty much the same.

Yes keep software updated. Just as anything else.

>    That's what I was talking about initially: Actual
> attacks on Windows itself are rare and usually
> connected to unsafe networking.

But far rarer on Macs and almost none existant compared with PCs.

There are more MS-DOS/Windows viruses than all other types of viruses combined (by a large margin).
Estimates of exactly how many there are vary widely and the number is constantly growing.

> The only bug I
> can recall 

what you recall is irrelivant to what is out there.

>that was otherwise was a bug some years
> ago in gdiplus.dll 

Mac don't use .dll files so another one that wouldn't harm a Mac.

So explain why yuo'd run a system that has to use gdiplus.dll ?

>that allowed attacks via image files.
> Typically the Windows bugs require a machine to be
> allowing contact through risky ports - 135, 139, 445
> I think they are. Remote Desktop, file sharing....
> stuff like that carries risks.

Only on a PC though.
So again you prove the point that windows users are far far more likely to be attacked.

>   So, yes, there are bugs that are fixed in Win10 and
> not in XP. 

At last the pennies dropped.

>There are most probably also bugs that
> exist for Win10 and not for XP or Win7. 

which are fixed as they are found so a good reason to update yet again.

>It's just not
> that big of a deal which version you're using.

yes it is.

> Microsoft
> and their media army play up the security angle so
> that people will be afraid not to update.

they should be wannacry proved that.

> Are you safer
> with Win10? 

Safer than with previous windows versions but probbly not as safe as running OS X or linux.

>That's hard to say out of context.

No it isn't.

> Will
> you be safer if you avoid script, Flash, Acrobat, Java
> and MS Office? Undoubtedly.

Yes just another reason to use a Mac, well done you're getting it, well not the viruses if you're
using a Mac OS.

> Avoiding the most popular
> software, in general, helps.

Yes MS is more 'popular' or rather there's more machines running windows.

>   Not running as admin will help a little bit, but personally
> I don't think it's worth the hassle. Creating user
> restrictions has just forced malware writers to find
> ways to bypass restrictions.

That's up to the user or rather the owner.

>   There's also the so-called social engineering angle:
> Getting people to click links in emails that look official,
> for instance.

Yes I get them here, but the vast majority of them won't do anything harmful to a Mac, that is a
very big point you keep missing.

>    The one arguable advantage with Win10 is the
> constant updating.

But only if users update.

> But that's also a vulnerrability,
> a potential destabilizer, a privacy issue, and renders
> Win10 a changing product.

But less risky than running XP or other outdated software.

> You might not want all
> those changes. If you like Win10 then I doubt there's
> any big security risk in using it. But security is not
> a reason to switch to Win10.

It is for some users, those buying a NEW PC won't have an option to have XP installed. Security is a
good reason to switch to W10 if you have a computer that is running an older windows OS.