|
|
|
|
|
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/3/2009 8:43:47 AM |
more to keep up with client versions. If it were for my needs alone, stuff I used a decade ago would still do the job. I agree. The only reason MS have succeeded it the obsolescence they build into their software.
And why do weneed so many updates? - sometimes it seems like daily. Is that just a sign of how much is wrong with MS products? | |
|
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/3/2009 10:37:22 AM |
And why do weneed so many updates? - sometimes it seems like daily. Is that just a sign of how much is wrong with MS products?
Its because there damned if they do and damned if they dont...
Its people like you who complain when theres a flaw that isnt fixed and then complain when they fix it that cause the problems...
I bet your a Firefox user, somebody who doesnt mind downloading a 10Mb+ file to get a fix that could be delivered in a 132kb file. | |
|
- don
| Joined: 4/23/2009 Msg: 28 | |
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/3/2009 1:42:19 PM |
Its because there damned if they do and damned if they dont...
Its people like you who complain when theres a flaw that isnt fixed and then complain when they fix it that cause the problems...
That may be true but when I pay for something, I want it to work consistently. My only issue with Microsoft is that they charge people to 'test' their products.
When I buy a car, I make sure that it has a good track record, check the consumer reports, and research it so that I know I'm not buying a POS that will become the toilet that I throw my money into later on. I guess what I'm trying to say is that when I pay for something, It better work properly or you can bet your ass I'm gonna b;tch about it.
I bet your a Firefox user, somebody who doesnt mind downloading a 10Mb+ file to get a fix that could be delivered in a 132kb file.
Firefox is free and has worked really well for me in the past. For me it's worth it to sacrifice a little speed for something more secure...kinda like a firewall with stateful packet inspection, may not be the fastest but it's more secure.
I bet you're one of those Opera users who thinks obscurity is the best form of security.....j/k ;-) All browsers have flaws and I don't think you'll mind downloading Opera's fix for the currently unpatched "vulnerabilities and security issues have been reported in Opera, which can be exploited by malicious people to conduct spoofing attacks." -http://secunia.com/advisories/36414/
IMO: For Browsers and OSes, I think it comes down to personal preference and whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks for the individual because none of them are perfect.
Personally, I prefer security and nothing hidden (I like full disclosure) and I want it for free.
I like firefox because it's open source (full disclosure...so I know the risks) and it is a full featured browser with optional add-ons and focused on security.
For my business OS, I use Red Hat's free clone 'CentOS' Red Hat Linux also has an experimental free version of their software 'Fedora' that I like to use for personal use because it has a lot of new features and tries to improve on efficiency, security, etc. and I don't mind when there are flaws because I didn't pay anything for it and it is pretty damn secure secure in comparison to many other OSes in comparison. & I also use openSUSE as one of my primary OSes which is stable and secure and free and open & I use Microsoft for business compatibility and education.
(just had to defend my browser of choice, it's been good to me since I started using it -and- add my opinion about paying to test software) | |
|
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/6/2009 7:08:22 PM | I disable everything in Winblows that is not absolutely needed and I get alot better performance out of the operating system as a whole.
Learning how to properly use Msconfig and Regedit is a must.
Third party anti virus,firewall and web browser is the biggest ticket. | |
|
| |
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/8/2009 8:57:11 PM | Hopefully you're updating that, too (I'm currently using Ubuntu and you better believe I give it permission to update every time it asks). Computer exploits exist for every net-enabled OS on the planet, and hackers find more and more every day.
People, it's really amazingly, blindingly simple. If you own a car, you take it in for a tune up; if you own a computer, you update it as needed. It's not ****ing rocket-science; it's part of what you need to do for the proper maintenance of your equipment. | |
|
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/9/2009 7:17:27 PM | | I disable, they cause more problems with other apps im running and i really dont need any additional heartburn! lol install manually take the time to actually look at what you are putting on your pc ;) | |
|
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/12/2009 1:08:31 AM | I have it disabled for one simple reason. Becuse every time i'm in the middle of doing something important it would always update and then try to reboot my computer.
It would give me the warning message asking me if I wanted to reboot or ask again later....and it would keep giving me that stupid message every 3-4 minutes when I clicked later.
I finally got frustrated and set it to let me choose when to update...but then those popups got on my nerves too.
I check my updates from time to time to see what i'm missing out on...but it's not an ongoing process. | |
|
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/12/2009 3:27:30 PM | SP3 was my last, major update.
WGA is annoying, WMP 11 is too flawed and bulky for my uses even though I ended up installing it anyway, and I've had too many moments in a past where one, measly update would seriously screw up something in XP.
If it isn't broke, I'm not fixing it... because that usually just breaks it.
The only real lack of an update that seriously effected me would be back when I had dial-up and that RPC worm forced my computer to shut down/reboot every time I was online. Several years ago and patched the same day...
I'll update avast, I'll update ipfilter.dat, and I'll update anything else on my system except for Windows itself.
Don't get me wrong, I like XP, but updates can be quite a nuisance now and then. | |
|
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/14/2009 1:20:00 AM | if you connect your windows box to the internet all, you should always leave updates on. especially if it fixes buffer overflow errors. in all the years i've worked with MSFT operating systems, there have been very few updates that have hosed systems (although IE tends to be the riskier updates to allow in these terms).
in terms of "being charged to test their products". every OS is going to have these problems (yes, even the much vaunted linux). we're talking literally millions of lines of code for security fixes, ease of use issues, and new technologies. you're going to have stray pointers in there some where. as much as I disagree with a lot of MSFT does, they really are in a position of "damned if they do, damned if they don't". i'm frankly amazed that you don't welcome the fixes they provide.
| |
|
- don
| Joined: 4/23/2009 Msg: 36 | |
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/14/2009 3:11:15 AM | luckygreentiger,
I agree with you on every post you've made that I remember reading except the 'pay-to-test' subject. I know every OS has flaws and ongoing issues but I think the way SLES & RHEL does it is more ethical and makes more sense than the way MS does it. that's just my opinion.
in terms of "being charged to test their products". every OS is going to have these problems (yes, even the much vaunted linux)
Novell SUSE ( SLES: non-free enterprise software) uses openSUSE (free open source software) to as their 'Testing Ground' and Red Hat( RHEL: non-free enterprise software) uses Fedora (free open source software) to test on before bringing them on as stable additions to the enterprise level.
-I know not all updates are tested on the OSS Distros but I think they do a pretty good job at not breaking their paying client's installations.
more info: http://en.opensuse.org/Download http://en.opensuse.org/Testing:Features_11.0 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Project_Wiki http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/red-hat-goes-live-fedora-553
i'm frankly amazed that you don't welcome the fixes they provide.
I do welcome MS fixes....just wish there were more of them
| |
|
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/14/2009 12:21:40 PM | | I think he meant that even Linux spams you with updates (I know that used to frustrate the heck out of me -esp with Fedora), but if he meant that even Linux charages you to beta test for them (as many people think of it with windows), then yeah -he was wrong (for the reasons you pointed out). | |
|
| |
- don
| Joined: 4/23/2009 Msg: 39 | |
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/14/2009 2:20:03 PM |
I think he meant that even Linux spams you with updates (I know that used to frustrate the heck out of me -esp with Fedora), but if he meant that even Linux charages you to beta test for them (as many people think of it with windows), then yeah -he was wrong (for the reasons you pointed out).
You can also get stable Fedora & openSUSE distros...I think they continually gather info/bugs from them ....the more info they have the more stable they can make it, that's another thing Windows can improve on...yeah, MS does a short beta/rc test but not nearly long enough to gather enough info to have a real stable release. Maybe they are concerned that they might loose some sales if they let you use it for free too long ? | |
|
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/14/2009 4:07:35 PM | Fedora is very stable for me as long I'm not updating rawhide packages. I usually wait 2 to 3 months after the distro is released, tends to have more bugs worked out that way. I can use it up to a year with updates released. Fedora auto dates it fine, it has never killed my system as long I'm not using rawhide. I trust fedora with updates, with microsoft I don't because sometimes they have slipped one without the user knowing about it. Microsoft focuses on making money instead of actually fixing the problem. They have changed somewhat with windows 7 but we will have to see. With microsoft they usually only update once a month so you can wait forever for a security patch. With linux and BSD it is usually with a few days. | |
|
- don
| Joined: 4/23/2009 Msg: 41 | |
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/14/2009 7:35:20 PM | Yeah... I don't enable the 'rawhide' repo. at all, I'm not into buggy software... if I was a developer I might, but I'm not.
I actually tested the Win 7 beta & RC1 in a VM...don't think it's ready but it was an improvement on Vista....or so I thought when I installed it...then shortly after the install, I hooked up one of my 1TB external drives and WOOSH...there went all of my files without extensions...deleted, it decided to fix my drive errors for me (I gave it permission but still...wtf). I've got Server 2k8 on it now | |
|
| |
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/18/2009 10:52:47 AM | The MSBlast fix was an Auto Update, if it had been installed as soon as possible then the effects of MSBlast wouldnt have been so wide and effective.
The Windows 7 beta [B 7000] MP3 coruption fix was an auto update
just two instances of reasons why you should have auto update turned on.
When you install office into Vista there are a list of updates, some critical, that become auto updates, if you install office on a wednesday and you "routine" is to only run auto update on a tuesday then you will go a week with a wide open security vulnerability...
Infact going back to MSBlast, did you know a high percentage of fixes for viruses like MSBlast are there to get if people only would, the whole MSBlast thing wouldnt have happened if people were more aware.
Just after MSBlast hit the big time I remember making a custom install disc for XP with the MSBlast fix slipstreamed into the install, because all to often MSBlast would strike before you could go and get the fix from M$ update.
MSBlast had the effect it did not because of the vulnerability, but because of its users. | |
|
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/18/2009 11:15:30 AM |
Just after MSBlast hit the big time I remember making a custom install disc for XP with the MSBlast fix slipstreamed into the install, because all to often MSBlast would strike before you could go and get the fix from M$ update.
I remember having a test system here, and I wanted to see the rate of infection and how fast it would happen so I installed a fresh copy of Windows XP Pro, naked, without any service packs. took less than 20 seconds to get MSBlaster, that was impressive.
MSBlast had the effect it did not because of the vulnerability, but because of its users.
It is because of those users, many of us have jobs in the industry. The fix for a lot of these massive viruses and worms were released months in advance, users just failed to install them.
<3 the old days of messenger spam. I used to love using that on IRC. | |
|
- don
| Joined: 4/23/2009 Msg: 45 | |
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/18/2009 4:55:32 PM | Infected In Twenty Minutes http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/262
The Slammer worm did most of its dirty work in under ten minutes. A half an hour is all it took for Nimda to spread worldwide. The Witty worm took an almost leisurely 45 minutes - but in that time it managed to infect every possible machine in its threat portfolio. And the slowpoke of the bunch is Version 2 of the Code Red worm, which worked for almost 14 hours to infect 359,000 machines, but at one point it was taking over 2,000 new computers every minute, which ain't bad (be sure to check out the cool animations demonstrating the rapacious spread of the worm).
Let's add a new time frame for computing disaster to the list above, one that every security pro should know: 20 minutes. That's not too long, if you think about it. You can't drive very far in most cities in 20 minutes. You can't watch an entire episode of The Mary Tyler Moore Show (sorry, but I love Mary) in that time. You sure as hell can't calculate your taxes (amazingly, though, you can learn HTML, or cook a nice dinner, or even practice yoga - who knew?). And what's something else that takes 20 minutes?
Oh, that's how long your average unprotected PC running Windows XP will last once it's connected to the Internet ... before it's compromised and effectively 0\/\/n3d.
Problems! Solutions?
The SANS Institute Internet Storm Center released those eye-opening numbers a few days ago. Go take a look at their graph, and you'll note that the current time of 20 minutes is half that of what it was a year ago, although, to be fair, the average has been both higher and lower - over an hour last Christmas and only about 15 minutes in the spring. That hour at Christmas seems like an aberration, and the overall trend has definitely been downward, towards far shorter times before your Windows box is not really yours any longer.
As the SANS Institute notes, 20 minutes is not long enough to update your Windows PC before it is too late. If you take a new PC out of the box, plug it in to the Internet, and power it on, most people (most people? OK - a lot of people. Uh, alright - some people. Erm ... *sigh*. A few people. Happy?) know enough to immediately hie thee over to Windows Update and get the latest patches from Microsoft. Then reboot. And get more patches. And reboot. Ad infinitum. Oh, and don't leave out the latest anti-virus updates either. Gotta have those. Oh oh oh - don't forget Windows XP Service Pack 2, the gotta-have update from Microsoft, which "may be as small as 70 megabytes (MB) or as large as 260 MB".
And users are supposed to download all this in less than 20 minutes?
Forget it. You and I both know the truth. Most people start their computer and head over to eBay to look up auctions for Precious Moments figurines, or start reading email, or check out their son-in-law's newly posted photos of little Susie and that scamp little Johnny, or fire up a game of Pinochle on Yahoo! Games. Windows Update? Huh? What's that? Why do I need to "protect" this computer? I just bought it!
And soon enough, Grandpa and Grandma's new Windows computer is spewing out email ads for offshore casinos, and SUPERLOW!!! mortgage rates, and \/1@gra and (1@li5, and God knows what else.
And it took just 20 minutes.
The SANS Institute tries to help by offering a free download of a great little 1.2 MB PDF wonderfully titled, "Windows XP: Surviving the First Day" (makes XP sound like a communicable disease, doesn't it? "Mrs. Jones, I'm sorry to inform you, but we've run the tests, and it appears that you have XP. Now don't cry - it's bad, but it's not a death sentence. Modern science has advanced in recent years, and it's now possible to live a reasonably happy life with XP. And there's a survivor's group that you'll want to meet as well.").
It really is a useful document, and the SANS Institute should be commended for making it available. It's clear and concise, relatively free of technojargon, and well-illustrated with screenshots that help explain exactly what to do. And it even has a nice little checklist at the back, and you know I love checklists. The problem is, Mom and Dad and Grandma and Grandpa aren't going to read this document. Even if all of us printed it out and gave it to our parents and grandparents and friends, they still wouldn't read it. It's 13 pages! And sure, it has pictures, but there are words in there too!
So, once again, it's up to the largest pro bono workforce in the world - the security pros who help everyone they know with their computers - to step up to the plate and say what I'm sure they've all said before: "OK, when you get that new computer, do not plug it in until I've gotten over there to help you set it up!" And over we come, with our CDs and USB jumpdrives crammed full of patches and updates and software, ready to inoculate that PC before it's turned loose on the Net.
Stepping In & Taking Charge
New PCs sold in a few months should have less of an issue with this whole mess, since they'll come with XP Service Pack 2 already installed, which means that the firewall will finally be turned on by default, which should help somewhat. In fact, I'd much rather have a friend call and ask why she can't play Star Trek StarFleet Command III 1.0 than have her call and ask me why her computer is running so slowly, and why she has these popup windows opening up all the time, and my goodness but they're nasty. But Service Pack 2 is only for XP, and 25% of users are still running Windows 98 ... or something older. Heck, 25% of all Windows servers are still on NT 4. Service Pack 2 sure isn't going to help those people.
For the good of the Net, and therefore for the good of all Net users, I'm glad that Microsoft's new service pack turns on the firewall by default. If applications break, too bad. If a user isn't educated enough to know how to open up a port he needs to run a particular program that needs a hole punched in the firewall, then that user shouldn't have unfettered access to the Net anyway. I'm almost getting to the point where I think that the best thing security pros could do for their friends and family still running pre-XP systems would be to tell them that they're going to upgrade their computers to the latest super-duper Microsoft service pack, and then do the following:
* Set Windows Update to automatically update the computer, without asking questions. * Install a personal firewall that blocks almost everything by default. * Buy a 2- or 3-year subscription to an anti-virus program and set it up to automatically download all updates. * Buy an anti-spyware tool and set it up to automatically update, scan, and remove spyware. * Replace Internet Explorer with Mozilla or Mozilla Firefox, and then hide that blue E so it's not on the desktop. * Replace Outlook Express with Mozilla Thunderbird.
When it's done, tell them that Microsoft's "updates" have fixed their PC. Explain that they're a bit more circumscribed than they used to be, but it's for their own good. I calculate that the above will take about 20 minutes. It could be the best 20 minutes you've ever spent on their computer. And it will certainly help prevent a disaster, instead of contributing to one. Of course, you could just have them switch over to Linux or Mac OS X, but I somehow think that might take longer than 20 minutes. Ah well. 20 minutes here, 20 minutes there, and it just might add up - to a safer computer, and a safer Net. Let's get started.
| |
|
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/18/2009 6:29:24 PM | ^ the above seems to be the industry's typically self-serving scare tactics and sales hype. Especially the asterisk points #2-4!
I can't tell you how many times I've had to rescue the PCs of friends, family and coworkers from the resource-hogging clutches of McAfee and Norton crap-ware.
I have had Windows Update turned off for at least a half year now, use antivirus (Avira) and antiSpyware (Spybot) freeware, and never a single hiccup. I do have the Windows firewall turned on, but have often turned off the firewall when using free wi-fi at cafes on my laptop for hours at a time, and again, no problems.
Granted, I do not surf overly exotic websites, nor do I play online games or download random "free" software (e.g. "instant messenger" services) offered online, nor do I open spam.
In the 15 years of Windows-based Internet usage I've gotten a grand total of maybe two viruses and one worm, which were quickly and easily removed and caused nothing worse than the loss/corruption of a few Word files, and a few annoying pop-up ads.
I find that it takes about the same amount of common sense to use the Internet safely as it does to drive a car safely. In other words, IT AIN'T ROCKET SCIENCE. | |
|
- don
| Joined: 4/23/2009 Msg: 47 | |
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/18/2009 7:16:39 PM |
^ the above seems to be the industry's typically self-serving scare tactics and sales hype. Especially the asterisk points #2-4!
Not sure if I get what you're saying... People wear seat belts in case of an accident...saying to wear your seat belt in my opinion is not an industry scare tactic for the seat belt business...so, I'd say it's common sense.
So how is that sales hype? There are so specific mentions of paid software anywhere in the article, he is just making general common sense (or should be common sense) suggestions ...Firefox & Thunderbird are free.
In the 15 years of Windows-based Internet usage I've gotten a grand total of maybe two viruses and one worm, which were quickly and easily removed and caused nothing worse than the loss/corruption of a few Word files, and a few annoying pop-up ads.
My Avast siren went off yesterday when I was browsing myspace with Windows...it detected a Trojan Horse...Another reason I prefer Linux....no seat belt necessary ;-) | |
|
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates? Posted: 9/19/2009 8:33:32 AM | ^ To extend on the car analogy, I'd say that seatbelts = using the OS firewall, Firefox, Avira and Spybot.
What that ad you posted was selling was more akin to the idea that one needs to armor plate a car, or buy some monstrous F-250 or Hummer just to feel safe in case of an accident---an accident that in all likelihood is more likely to be a fender-bender than anything.
He doesn't mention SPECIFIC paid software, but recommends paid software firewalls and antivirus programs. Absurd when there is plenty of perfectly good freeware available. | |
|
|
|