A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Windows 10. Horrible!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 2nd 17, 06:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Windows 10. Horrible!

"Whisky-dave" wrote

| The latest version of Windows
| is far less safe than careful use of an old version.
|
| Not true, as was seen with wannacry .
|
I just explained all that in great detail above. Did
you miss that? Here's a more technical explanation:

https://www.csoonline.com/article/32...sponsible.html

Long story short, WannaCry was just a single bug
that happened to be patched in Win10. But the
way it attacked was through SMB -- networking
functionality. For anyone not on a corporate network
it doesn't need to be a risk at all.

It still comes back to the same thing: As long
as you allow remote software to run code on your
machine, there's no possiblity of security. The
only question is when and how you'll be compromised.

| 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 ?
|

Read the link above. Where have you been?
This has been a scandal for awhile now. The
NSA is developing this stuff and then it's getting
stolen from them.

https://arstechnica.com/information-...-to-microsoft/

https://techprolonged.com/2017/03/wi...phone-android/

https://techprolonged.com/2017/05/wa...dows-exploits/

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archiv...brokers_r.html

If you really want to know about this then why not research
it yourself rather than just challenging me?

| There's a lot of money
| involved. At some point it may be that *all*
| money is involved.
|
| I doubt that.
|
Personally I still mail checks and walk to the bank,
but I know a lot of people who do nearly everything
electronically. Direct deposit, automatic withdrawal,
credit cards and debit cards to buy food and other
necessities. That's all going over computer networks
and being stored in online databases. Gas pump,
ATM and supermarket checkout skimmers, malware
installed through online ads.... That's high-level,
professional stuff because there's a lot of money
to be made. It's a far cry from the teenage prank
malware of the 90s.

|
| (Nospam thinks he's going to
| be safe by letting Apple or Google handle his
| finances.)
|
| far safer than letting XP handle it.
|
Good luck with that. Your attitude is exactly
what the crooks (and the companies that want
to sell you a "wallet") want you to think.

| 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.
|

Not really a computer thing?! IoT is about Internet-
connected devices. Computer devices. Networked devices.
Using internal computers. Your iPhone talks to your front
door lock. Your car keys talk to your car. Once you've
done that, it can be hacked. Those have been hacked.
As more and more things become unnecessarily automated
and computerized, it becomes increasingly easy to break
things. World War 3 might just start with a cyberattack
that causes all driverless cars to accelerate uncontrollably,
killing millions in seconds and leaving the national infrastructure
unusable. And why? It's all such unnecessary idiocy.

| Why
| are they hackable? Because people think it's
| clever to unlock your house from your cellphone.
|
| Most don't do that as yet.
|
Yes. *Most* don't do *that* yet. So you can
probably go back to sleep. Sorry to wake you.
But check This Old house sometime. They're installing
them. They think they're clever.



  #22  
Old November 2nd 17, 07:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Windows 10. Horrible!

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Long story short, WannaCry was just a single bug
that happened to be patched in Win10.


which means that win10 is *more* secure than winxp, exactly the
*opposite* of what you've been babbling about.

But the
way it attacked was through SMB -- networking
functionality. For anyone not on a corporate network
it doesn't need to be a risk at all.


wannacry is just one example of many.

It still comes back to the same thing: As long
as you allow remote software to run code on your
machine, there's no possiblity of security. The
only question is when and how you'll be compromised.


unless you write *all* of your own software *and* the operating system
itself, using a compiler you also wrote, then you could be compromised.

how do you really know that the compiler isn't adding secret back doors
to what it's generating?

oh, design and fab your own chips too. the hardware could have some
'additional functionality' you might not want.

| There's a lot of money
| involved. At some point it may be that *all*
| money is involved.
|
| I doubt that.
|
Personally I still mail checks and walk to the bank,
but I know a lot of people who do nearly everything
electronically. Direct deposit, automatic withdrawal,
credit cards and debit cards to buy food and other
necessities. That's all going over computer networks
and being stored in online databases.


the checks you mailed are scanned and then destroyed by the bank, with
the images stored in online databases.

the envelopes you mailed are scanned by the us postal service and also
stored in a database.

Gas pump,
ATM and supermarket checkout skimmers, malware
installed through online ads.... That's high-level,
professional stuff because there's a lot of money
to be made. It's a far cry from the teenage prank
malware of the 90s.


as i said before, apple/android pay is immune to skimmers or merchants
being hacked.

you refuse to learn.


| (Nospam thinks he's going to
| be safe by letting Apple or Google handle his
| finances.)
|
| far safer than letting XP handle it.
|
Good luck with that. Your attitude is exactly
what the crooks (and the companies that want
to sell you a "wallet") want you to think.


further evidence that you haven't any clue whatso****ingever about how
apple/android pay works.

nobody is being sold a 'wallet'.

| 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.
|

Not really a computer thing?! IoT is about Internet-
connected devices. Computer devices. Networked devices.
Using internal computers. Your iPhone talks to your front
door lock. Your car keys talk to your car. Once you've
done that, it can be hacked. Those have been hacked.


anything can be hacked.

call a locksmith and watch how easily he can pick the lock on your
front or back door, or just use a bump key yourself. it's child's play.

or just smash a window and climb in that way.

locks keep out the honest. they do nothing to stop those with ill
intent.

As more and more things become unnecessarily automated
and computerized, it becomes increasingly easy to break
things.


more difficult, you mean.

it's not possible to bump key a lock that has no physical key, and
cracking the encryption is *significantly* more difficult.

or as i said, just throw a rock through the window.

World War 3 might just start with a cyberattack
that causes all driverless cars to accelerate uncontrollably,
killing millions in seconds and leaving the national infrastructure
unusable. And why? It's all such unnecessary idiocy.


the only idiocy is what you keep spewing.
  #23  
Old November 2nd 17, 11:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Windows 10. Horrible!

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 10:16:38 -0400, "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.


But the careful use of the latest version is better than the careful
use of an old version.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #24  
Old November 3rd 17, 02:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Windows 10. Horrible!

"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. And are you
careful? do you disable networking and either disable
script or at least use NoScript to limit it? Do you avoid
using risky Microsoft and Adobe products? If not then
you're not being careful.

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

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

That's what I was talking about initially: Actual
attacks on Windows itself are rare and usually
connected to unsafe networking. The only bug I
can recall that was otherwise was a bug some years
ago in 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.

So, yes, there are bugs that are fixed in Win10 and
not in XP. There are most probably also bugs that
exist for Win10 and not for XP or Win7. It's just not
that big of a deal which version you're using. Microsoft
and their media army play up the security angle so
that people will be afraid not to update. Are you safer
with Win10? That's hard to say out of context. Will
you be safer if you avoid script, Flash, Acrobat, Java
and MS Office? Undoubtedly. Avoiding the most popular
software, in general, helps.

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.

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

The one arguable advantage with Win10 is the
constant updating. But that's also a vulnerrability,
a potential destabilizer, a privacy issue, and renders
Win10 a changing product. 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.




  #25  
Old November 3rd 17, 02:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Windows 10. Horrible!

"Eric Stevens" wrote

| But the careful use of the latest version is better than the careful
| use of an old version.

I think another way of looking at this is....
If you don't want to be hobbled by good security
but you're willing to buy a new computer in order
to be more secure, then why not buy a Mac?
Macs have far less trouble and probably will
for at least the near-term future. They cost
more but they also have resale value. Macs are
the AOL of computers. They put you in a suburban
playpen and take care of security for you. It's not
failsafe, but if you're not going to take the trouble
to *really* be careful then a Mac is a much safer
choice.... assuming it will run the software you
need.


  #26  
Old November 3rd 17, 02:47 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Windows 10. Horrible!

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Not running as admin will help a little bit, but personally
I don't think it's worth the hassle.


actually, it helps a *lot*. as in, block almost all of it.

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/standar...are,news-18326.
html
"Ninety-two percent of all vulnerabilities reported by Microsoft with
a critical severity rating can be mitigated by removing admin
rights," states the enterprise-security firm Avecto, of Manchester,
England, in a new report.

"Removing admin rights would mitigate 96 percent of critical
vulnerabilities affecting Windows operating systems, 91 percent of
critical vulnerabilities affecting Microsoft Office and 100 percent
of vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer," Avecto said.

Creating user
restrictions has just forced malware writers to find
ways to bypass restrictions.


which is generally difficult, and there are enough people who run as
admin for there to be plenty of targets, making it not very worthwhile
to bypass anything.

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


that's the biggest weakness and one that is very difficult to fix.

even security researchers who know better can sometimes be tricked.

The one arguable advantage with Win10 is the
constant updating.


it's a huge advantage, although it can be annoying at times.

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


nonsense.

You might not want all
those changes.


nearly everyone does.

security patches, bug fixes and new features are a good thing.

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's a very good reason.
  #27  
Old November 3rd 17, 02:47 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Windows 10. Horrible!

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| But the careful use of the latest version is better than the careful
| use of an old version.

I think another way of looking at this is....
If you don't want to be hobbled by good security


hobbled by good security?

but you're willing to buy a new computer in order
to be more secure, then why not buy a Mac?


good advice.

Macs have far less trouble and probably will
for at least the near-term future.


has someone hacked your account??

you're talking sense.

They cost
more


no they don't.

but they also have resale value.


yes they do.

Macs are
the AOL of computers.


no they aren't.

They put you in a suburban
playpen


that doesn't even make any sense.

and take care of security for you.


which is a good thing.

It's not
failsafe,


nothing is 100% failsafe.

however, macs are among the closest to it.

but if you're not going to take the trouble
to *really* be careful then a Mac is a much safer
choice.... assuming it will run the software you
need.


macs can run mac/windows/unix software, all natively.

no other system can do that.
  #28  
Old November 3rd 17, 02:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Windows 10. Horrible!

"Whisky-dave" wrote

Long story short, WannaCry was just a single bug
that happened to be patched in Win10.


| Just happened to be patched how did that happen, fairy dust in the air ?

You're missing the point. David gave a real example
of a bug that Win10 is protected from. But it's
only one bug of thousands in a complex "ecosystem".
You're indulging in twisting valid facts into invalid
cherry picking.

But the
way it attacked was through SMB -- networking
functionality. For anyone not on a corporate network
it doesn't need to be a risk at all.


| windows computers are on corporate networks you know.

I don't know about you but my compter isn't.
I've disabled networking functions and blocked
risky ports. By networking I don't mean connecting
to the Internet. I mean being part of a network,
with things like remote running of software, file
sharing, etc.
The corporate model is like a house with no
front door lock but a lock on every cabinet and
door inside. The network is trused. The person
using the computer is not. The SOHo model is
the opposite. The person using the computer is
trusted but the Internet is not. Windows is designed
to be a corporate workstation. Highly risky networking
functionality that most people don't need is enabled
by default.

| And why attack SMB ?

Look it up. I already explained it.


| So why weren't Macs compromised ?

Macs are safer because Apple closely controls the
system. Macs are the AOL of computers. You get
less control but in exchange you get more stability
and security without needing to understand it. Macs
are also a very small minority of computers. Big with
phones, but almost non-existent in places like
hospitals and police depts and other corporate locations
being attacked.
But be patient. Macs will get their chance, I'm sure.


| So it wasn't the NSA then was it.

I gave you 5 links. But all you want to do is use
the data to argue about how Macs are better. I'm
not going to join your mudfest.

but I know a lot of people who do nearly everything
electronically. Direct deposit, automatic withdrawal,
credit cards and debit cards to buy food and other
necessities.


| I do, but not using windows.

That's good. Stick with Macs. If you can't be bothered
to understand security then Macs are a much safer
option. If you want to enjoy e-conveniences, services
and shopping without worry then Macs and iPhones are
the only way to do it. At least for now.

So why are you worrying about me using Windows?
The AppleSeed doth protest too much?



  #29  
Old November 3rd 17, 03:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Windows 10. Horrible!

"Whisky-dave" wrote


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.


So why are you in this discussion? You don't
understand security. You don't care. You know
nothing about Windows. We're talking about
Win10. You've just chimed in to say, "I love
Macs!!", sounding like a Jehovah's Witness
who just keeps telling everyone, over and over,
that they're going to Hell because they don't
accept the same God. (Lord Jobs in your case.)


  #30  
Old November 3rd 17, 03:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Windows 10. Horrible!

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

I don't know about you but my compter isn't.
I've disabled networking functions and blocked
risky ports. By networking I don't mean connecting
to the Internet. I mean being part of a network,
with things like remote running of software, file
sharing, etc.


the 1980s wants you back.

The corporate model is like a house with no
front door lock but a lock on every cabinet and
door inside. The network is trused. The person
using the computer is not. The SOHo model is
the opposite. The person using the computer is
trusted but the Internet is not. Windows is designed
to be a corporate workstation. Highly risky networking
functionality that most people don't need is enabled
by default.


one reason why it's so vulnerable.



| So why weren't Macs compromised ?

Macs are safer because Apple closely controls the
system.


nope.

it's because macs are inherently more secure and it's a *lot* harder to
compromise them.

Macs are the AOL of computers.


meaningless idiocy.

You get
less control but in exchange you get more stability
and security without needing to understand it.


nonsense. there's as much control as the user wants to exert.

this has been explained to you before.

Macs
are also a very small minority of computers.


not really.

for photography, video and graphic arts, macs are very widespread.

for other segments, they're not.

pick the best tool for the job.

only ignorant consumers would buy based on popularity rather than how
well it can handle a given task.

Big with
phones, but almost non-existent in places like
hospitals and police depts and other corporate locations
being attacked.


wrong, but even if that's true, so what?

mcdonald's sells the most hamburgers. that doesn't mean they're any
good.

But be patient. Macs will get their chance, I'm sure.


they're doing exceptionally well, despite your protesting.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.