Windows 10. Horrible!

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Do you enable file sharing? Not block port 445?
Enable the Server service? COM+? Other remote
network functionality? Maybe you want all that because
you want to be able to network computers in your
house. That makes sense, but you also need to be
aware that it's very high risk and Win10 is not going to
be a panacea. You're at far more risk than I am on
XP.

as usual, you have that completely backwards.

win10 is significantly *less* risky than xp.

On 01/11/2017 13:21, Mayayana wrote:
"David Taylor" wrote

| The chatter about older versions being unsafe is
| also, for the most part, only chatter.
| []
|
| Try telling that to the UK's NHS and others:
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ruption-breach
|

?? You don't seem to realize that you're illustrating
my point for me.==============================

The point is that anyone running XP needs to be very careful if Internet
connected. That's all. I don't accept your statement that networked
machines shouldn't be connected to the Internet.

Get the message across to folk - be careful and vigilant, what ever OS
you're using, and keep that OS updated. Simple!

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 11/1/2017 12:27 PM, David Taylor wrote:
On 01/11/2017 13:21, Mayayana wrote:
"David Taylor" wrote

| Â*Â*Â* The chatter about older versions being unsafe is
| also, for the most part, only chatter.
| []
|
| Try telling that to the UK's NHS and others:
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ruption-breach

|

Â*Â* ?? You don't seem to realize that you're illustrating
my point for me.==============================

The point is that anyone running XP needs to be very careful if Internet
connected.Â* That's all.Â* I don't accept your statement that networked
machines shouldn't be connected to the Internet.

Some years ago I was talking about HIPPA rules with one of my doctors.
He his network was impenetrable. With his consent, I hacked into his
network in a few minutes. It was simply a matter of knowing him, and his
habits. His password was his license plate number, and he had a
ridiculous firewall. I was able to straighten that out for him. Internet
access was provided through a separate network, with only authorized
users having access to his router,



Get the message across to folk - be careful and vigilant, what ever OS
you're using, and keep that OS updated.Â* Simple!



--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:


Some years ago I was talking about HIPPA rules with one of my doctors.
He his network was impenetrable.

just like the titanic was unsinkable.

anyone who says that is a fool.

With his consent, I hacked into his
network in a few minutes. It was simply a matter of knowing him, and his
habits. His password was his license plate number, and he had a
ridiculous firewall.

equifax had a public facing server with the id/pw of admin/admin.

last year, they were told that their systems were horribly insecure and
trivial to hack. they did nothing.

I was able to straighten that out for him. Internet
access was provided through a separate network, with only authorized
users having access to his router,

how can you be sure? routers have exploits too.

"David Taylor" wrote

| I don't accept your statement that networked
| machines shouldn't be connected to the Internet.
|

They're high risk. Many people want to be able to
network their computers. Maybe you find it a hassle
to walk downstairs with a USB stick to move a file.
That's understandable. Networking is convenient.
But there is high risk. there's nothing there to "accept"
or not. You're choosing convenience over risk. The
only thing more risky would be to not acknowledge
that.

That's why we have hacks of Home Depot, Target,
etc. Access online is connected to the backend data.
Those sites will be hacked until they stop connecting
the internal network online. I once saw somewhere that
the CIA (or is it the FBI?) gives 2 computers to each
agent in their office. One is internal. One is Internet-
connected.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| I don't accept your statement that networked
| machines shouldn't be connected to the Internet.

They're high risk. Many people want to be able to
network their computers. Maybe you find it a hassle
to walk downstairs with a USB stick to move a file.

you don't actually do that, do you?

That's understandable. Networking is convenient.

and extremely useful.

But there is high risk. there's nothing there to "accept"
or not. You're choosing convenience over risk. The
only thing more risky would be to not acknowledge
that.

it's only high risk for those who don't take steps to properly secure
things.


That's why we have hacks of Home Depot, Target,
etc. Access online is connected to the backend data.
Those sites will be hacked until they stop connecting
the internal network online. I once saw somewhere that
the CIA (or is it the FBI?) gives 2 computers to each
agent in their office. One is internal. One is Internet-
connected.

no, it's because they don't bother securing anything.

for target, the patch had been released, but nobody bothered applying
it. just like equifax.

and should that happen again (which it will), those who use apple pay
and android pay are completely immune.

On 01/11/2017 22:20, Mayayana wrote:
"David Taylor" wrote

| I don't accept your statement that networked
| machines shouldn't be connected to the Internet.
|

They're high risk. Many people want to be able to
network their computers. Maybe you find it a hassle
to walk downstairs with a USB stick to move a file.
That's understandable. Networking is convenient.
But there is high risk. there's nothing there to "accept"
or not. You're choosing convenience over risk. The
only thing more risky would be to not acknowledge
that.

Yes, it's a risk, and that risk has to be managed, but in many cases
networked machines have to be connected to the Internet, so I don't
accept your "should not" statement. User education is, in my view, the
most important action.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

"Whisky-dave" wrote

| trouble is you can't keep XP updated withoutn moving on past XP to windows
10.
| 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. The latest version of Windows
is far less safe than careful use of an old version.

Our own tax dollars are being spent by the NSA
to figure out new 0-day hacks. Then outside
hackers hack into the NSA and make them public.
Federal tax dollars are funding the likes of WannaCry.
It's not oging to get better. There's a lot of money
involved. At some point it may be that *all*
money is involved. (Nospam thinks he's going to
be safe by letting Apple or Google handle his
finances.)

The most basic issue is not about buying
whatever Microsoft or Apple say you need this
year. The most basic issue is expressed by David
Taylor's position: People want functionality and
convenience with no risk and zero effort. We
want to buy stuff online, do our banking, adjust
our home thermometer.... The "Internet of Things"
is becoming a new, vast area of security risks,
with things like hackable front door locks. Why
are they hackable? Because people think it's
clever to unlock your house from your cellphone.
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.

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.
No one wants even a tiny bit of effort to be
involved. 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. 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. But increasingly there's money to be made
by hacking them.

The answer is very simple, undeniable, and
yet we're all in denial: There's no security possible
online as long as executable code is supported.
If webpages are HTML and CSS it can be made safe.
Those are just graphical layout instructions. But
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.
We want interactive TV with unlimited fulfillment
of impulses.

You go to buy a widget and you're sent to a
dozen websites -- to process your credit card,
get fonts, show you ads, spy on you... Many of
those sites link you to other sites. Hackers buying
ads has become a common way to attack your
computer. The webpage you see is now actually
a software program, with input from dozens of actors
that you not only never visited. You've never even
heard of them. And none of them cares very much
about your security.
That scenario is actually fairly recent. The past
couple of years. 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.

In article , Mayayana
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.

complete nonsense.

Our own tax dollars are being spent by the NSA
to figure out new 0-day hacks. Then outside
hackers hack into the NSA and make them public.
Federal tax dollars are funding the likes of WannaCry.
It's not oging to get better. There's a lot of money
involved.

which is why users need to update to the latest version, because the
security exploits the nsa finds eventually get patched.

your strategy to use older versions means the nsa has free reign.

you also are oblivious as to other things that can be done to secure a
system beyond what the nsa can do.

At some point it may be that *all*
money is involved. (Nospam thinks he's going to
be safe by letting Apple or Google handle his
finances.)

i never said that.

i'm not surprised you're too ignorant to understand what i did say.

the rest of you lunacy snipped.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Then outside
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 ?

the news. it was widely reported.


(Nospam thinks he's going to
be safe by letting Apple or Google handle his
finances.)

far safer than letting XP handle it.

apple and google don't handle the user's finances at all.

he is completely ignorant about today's technology and wishes to remain
ignorant.

Of course you probbaly not aware that NO Apple product was 'infected by
wannacry"

yep.


The most basic issue is not about buying
whatever Microsoft or Apple say you need this
year.

Apple does charge yuo for security updates adn I donlt think MS does either,
you just buy a new OS.

apple does not charge anything for security updates, nor does
microsoft, as are new oses.





So, some things never change.
even Queen Elizabeth 1st had spies working for her in the 1550s and thre
abouts.

what a bitch.




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 people are ignorant. so what.

Some believe they are safer with Macs because far fewer people using macs
have problems with Macs than they do with PCs.

they too are ignorant.

And when anyone loks into it they find that generally speaking it's true.

nope.

if someone looks into it, they find that macs are significantly more
secure by design, not because fewer people use them.


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.

the gui version did. excel and photoshop were also mac first.



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 ;-)

both do both.