Options for When Microsoft Discontinues It's Support on Windows XP SP3

This discussion has been rehashed over and over. That assumption ignores the users abilities, 3rd party security-ware, settings, type of attack, and more. It also assumes that attacks that work on newer systems will automatically work on the older ones. The older an OS gets, the less true that becomes. Most all of the rootkit based malware won't function on my system, even if I let it try, just as an exploit that targets a service won't work on a system that doesn't have that service. It cuts both ways. New and patched doesn't equal secure. Old doesn't equal insecure. I don't even want to try to count how many times MS has patched their own patches only to find the same thing exploited again.

From the start I said that running an unsupported OS or taking the unofficial support road is not for the casual user. It's for those who know their systems well, including its potential attack surface. All of them can be secured against internet threats. All of them will fall to a skilled hacker.

 

Again, saying this is fine but there's a huge difference between running a patched machine and an unpatched machine. In once scenario the cost of an exploit is nothing (they're public, not being patched) and in the other they're significantly higher.

In the case of a patch providing another vulnerability, that's true... but that's another exploit that has to be discovered. That's another cost added to the hack.

I mean, yeah, if your goal is to trip automated malware up you can do that by breaking any of the assumptions that automated malware makes (access to registry, specific files, whatever.) If your goal is actual security, yep, you need the latest technologies.

I guess that's just a personal preference. I would rather be actually secure than "secure enough" for a very specific threat landscape of automated malware. (edit: And as you say it's a choice that most casual users shoudl tno make)

 

Hey, I wanted to thank everyone for their input and advice. Thanks.

 

One option is too run a Linux based host and use Windows XP in a VM. This would allow you to use the familar system and tools but keep you protected from malware (it won't be able to break through to the Linux host). I say linux because in theory malware could cross from a windows VM to windows host (potentially via the virtually LAN adapter/network).

You could also use snapshots to resort back to an earlier version if you get infected.

Another option is to use Windows XP as host and a linux Guest for internet browsing/internet facing apps. That would aid in prevent XP from being hit by malware.

The first option is more secure as the host is up to date, but the second one is a good compromise if you need/want XP as the host.

 

Is linux not an option? If your hardware is supported (test it out with a LiveCD) it's a free (open and without cost) operating system that'll run on older system, keep you very secure, and you can do many of the things you would normally do on Windows (edit files, go online, chat with friends, etc.)

 

If your hardware doesn't run linux properly and live CDs don't work right either, you could install VirtualBox on the XP unit and run the live CDs in it. Several of them do run well in VirtualBox.

Lots of options, probably more than you wanted.

 

Windows xp = old hacks

Windows 7 and 8 = new hacks

sounds the SAME to me

 

Personally I'm madly in love with virtual machine snapshots. You can do all sorts of risky & nasty stuff to your OS, then just revert back to a snapshot and all is well again. You can also clone it & have a few instances of XP running- an excellent way to test stuff.

 

I actually keep an XP VM completely stripped down on my Ubuntu. I use it for Netflix and only Netflix.

 

"Win7 XP Mode will be supported as long as Win7 (SP2) is supported BUT there will be no further security updates for WinXP after April 2014."

Unless I'm very much mistaken, this reply was written on February the 18th 2011. I thought that quite recently MS had revised some of these extension support dates & XP SP3 was being supported until around 2017.

 

They haven't updated their documentation at least:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/products/lifecycle?T1=winxp
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?ln=en-gb&c2=1173

Is this what you're thinking of?
http://www.technobuffalo.com/compan...oft-extends-support-for-windows-xp-and-vista/

Daveski17, do you know of a link?

 

I haven't got a link but I asked about Vista on the Microsoft Answers forum & I was informed that Vista Home Premium SP 2 will have extended support until 2017. I have read various reports around the Net that this was also going to be applied to XP.

You could ask here I reckon. I think it would be strange if both weren't supported, regardless of MS desperately wanting to waste XP permanently. Although, in my experience, MS tend to change their mind as much as George Lucas changes Star Wars.

EDIT: After some searching I think I am probably wrong about XP & it will be supported until 2014. Still, XP users have at least a couple of years to decide whether to either upgrade their operating systems/hardware or learn Ubuntu.

 

While I think the best solution is to run XP in a virtual box on linux, it seems to me that learning Ubuntu to solve the XP upgrade problem is a bit like killing a fly with an H-bomb. The learning curve is really stinking steep for linux in general. Even to get some distro simply installed, you're bound to have something break that will require expert advice to fix (laptop won't hibernate, screen is too dim, sound won't work, webcam isn't recognized, hangs on splash screen, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).

 

I disagree. Ubuntu doesn't need much of a learning curve at all. I have setup about 10 or so people who have next to no computer knowledge with Ubuntu. You never have to use the Command Line if you don't want to, everything can be done via GUI these days. The only issue is hardware. If you have a laptop like mine (HP pavilion G6) there are some hiccups (The monitor is off on boot and you have to increase brightness every time with the keyboard keys) but can easily be fixed with a simple modification or booting into "safe-graphics" mode.

I have never had a device not recognized in Ubuntu. Both printers simply work when plugged in, Webcam works, Keyboard/mice works, Phone works, Video camera works. For the average person the biggest hurdle is knowing of and download Ubuntu. They really make it easy to use. That other issue is getting use to the desktop a bit and how things look a little different.

For members of this forum, I can't see any of them having issues with Ubuntu as they are tech-savy to begin with.

I digress though.

 

Yeah, you're right. I've been thinking of using Wubi to make a dual boot on my Vista notebook. I am doing a bit of research before I decide to actually attempt this though. I know a bit about some of the problems inherent with various distros, including Ubuntu. I'm one of the few people on the face of the planet that actually likes Vista, I really like my 64 bit Win 7 desktop, but I always rated Vista. It was highly praised when it was first introduced into my country (we didn't get any of the bugs apparently) & I liked it straight away. There are even some things that I actually prefer on Vista to Seven. Either way, it's working fine & I can't justify spending 80 - 100 quid ($140-160?) on an upgrade that might not even be successful. Mind you, I liked XP when it came out as well.

 

Well, there's that ...

You're not increasing my confidence ...

Speak for yourself. It took me a while to figure out just how to add extensions to OpenOffice.

I give this post five mins before it is removed for being off-topic LOL!

 

Ubuntu is very easy. Laptops have a harder time because of hardware but once it's set up you shouldn't have any problems - just like any Windows installation. You're much safer and you have the tools to really lock down your system if you feel so inclined.

If I were ever forced to pay for a Windows OS I'd have moved to Ubuntu right then and there - thankfully I've never actually had to so I've taken my sweet time transferring.

 

That is a genuine concern though.

Undoubtedly.

What! You get free Windows where you live? That's almost as good as free beer.

 

I've always had access to free Windows versions either through a job or school. I've never paid once.

 

That's nice. I own four computers, three of them have genuine copies of Windows. I had to buy all of them. The oldest of the four computers is not online.

I'm pretty sure if I dropped one of our crappy work laptops they'd make me pay for it. I can afford a fiver though LOL.

 

if you not big gamer linux ............. is good choice now days they are very simple and easy

pclinuxos / linux mint with cinnamon are pretty out of box experience for newbie

if you have 2 gb ram you can run kde base system nicely lot of linux distro

also if you have less ram you can try xfce base distro's like xubuntu pclinux xfce ......etc

you can youtube and see

if you intersted little more hard way and stability you can try centos/Scientific Linux linux they not simple as linux mint of pclinux os but not tough like slackware gentoo either some where middle and best part its made on redhat linux and supported for 20 years. so lot of options if you not gamer

i suggest every one should try linux they are very good secondry OS even if you like window very much.

i have vista + many Linux OS on desktop and xp + ubuntu 10.04 (LTS) on laptop

 

I was thinking of setting up my oldest computer with Linux, unfortunately it has less than 1GB of RAM, otherwise I would probably still be using it (it originally had a crack of XP). It seems that most distros now, Ubuntu included, need the same minimum amount of RAM as Win 7! I have considered Puppy. I have to sort a few hardware problems out as well though. Whether I really will get around to it or not though is difficult to say.

 

There are way lighter distros than Ubuntu and even Ubuntu will run with much more room on a 1GB system than 7.

 

LOL. Where exactly is the GUI for apparmor? Try to set up an ssh server/client in a GUI- it's actually easier in terminal. Same with iptables vs. firewalls. To truly lock down the system you're going to have to open a terminal (talk about digressing...) Nah, I get what you're saying. For the normal person you really don't need to use the command line. But I'm not normal. I actually like Ubuntu, and I may be the only person on the planet that likes Unity, too. (And I don't really mind Vista either- I guess I'm a total freak!)

Back on topic...

Daveski- Based on the amount of trouble I've seen with wubi, I'd recommend just doing a true dual boot instead. It's so much simpler to configure.

 

Puppy runs as root, not advisable when you're first starting out IMHO.

xubuntu, kubuntu, etc. - lots of light distros. Mint is light although I haven't tried it.

Find one, make a live CD, see how it runs on your dinosaur.