Latest Security Intelligence Report shows older systems more vulnerable

Discussion in 'other security issues & news' started by ronjor, Oct 14, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,755
    Location:
    Texas
    Microsoft
     
  2. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    I wouldn't expect MS to say any different. Such articles are intended to motivate sales.
    It's not surprising. Most XP systems have been exposed to malware and deliberately targeted for a lot more years than Vista or Win 7.
     
  3. culla

    culla Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Posts:
    504
    scaremongering doesn't work on xp users :D
     
  4. Rmus

    Rmus Exploit Analyst

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    3,943
    Location:
    California
    The average user is certainly better off using the latest OS -- I advise as such, when asked.

    To use an older system, especially one no longer supported, requires a user who understands how to enable/install adequate protection.

    If updates are no longer available, the possibilities for infection are just too great if the user doesn't know enough to secure the system.

    While many members on these forums do have that in-depth knowledge and understanding, the majority of Currently Active Users at any one time are guests whose expertise is not known.

    Unless a knowledgeable person is available to guide and tutor an average user (which I've advocated for years!), that user is better off keeping up to date with a newer system, IMHO.

    ----
    rich
     
  5. chronomatic

    chronomatic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Posts:
    1,343
    I agree with M$ here (even though I am sure they want to sell more OS's). There is not much doubt that if a user upgrades from XP 32 bit to Win 7 64 bit, that he will see a big increase in security. There are simply a lot more security features in Vista/7 than there was in XP.

    Of course, I don't recommend running Windows at all, as there are safer (and free) OS's out there. But if you must give your money to M$, then you really should upgrade from XP.
     
  6. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Of course it's about money, no one should be naive enough to think Microsoft is making these recommendations without dollar signs in their eyes. But, there's a lot more to this than just "XP still works". It seems like sometimes people here think the Wilders mentality exists outside Wilders. That the average user wants to and can tweak their OS and programs, wants to and can know their system inside and out, and just generally has a security mindset. It just simply isn't so, and there is more than enough evidence to prove it.

    Your average user is sitting around on a bot infested system, uploading the newest happenings in their life to their Facebook page and downloading anything and everything they can get their paws on, without once checking if their AV is even still running, let alone whether it's up to date. You do that on a Windows 7 system and you're in trouble, you do that on XP without the at least more useful security features that 7 has, and you might as well just hang it up. Personally, I don't want my system out there on the net with systems and users like I described above. No more excuses, these old systems need to be put out to pasture.
     
  7. acuariano

    acuariano Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Posts:
    786
    and that means ms wants more $$$$$$
    thanks for the intelligence report.
     
  8. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    So you retire older systems because of what a user with no sense might do to them? Should cars with manual transmsssions be retired because some can't drive a stick shift? The systems are fine. The average user is the common problem. They either need to be "put out to pasture" or be using read-only systems that they can't infect.
    Lets take this one step farther. There's a wide open market for a remote administration service for the home user.
     
  9. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,785
    No, you retire older systems because they are less secure and the newer systems are better. Simple enough. You can't stand in the way of progress anyway. You can try, but in the end, you will lose.
     
  10. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Very trite.

    However, because I haven't yet been inconvenienced by my older, non-progressive system, I'll stick with it. With a little luck, I might be able to avoid buying Win 7 just the way I avoided buying the oh so wonderful Vista. Maybe leapfrog to Win 14 or 15?

    As far as security is concerned, it's a personal issue and I've not yet been made insecure by using an older system.

    As far as productivity is concerned, I can conduct correspondence and maintain my accounts using Open Office, thank you very much!

    So maybe we should stop making blanket statements and leave matters up to our personal needs. If that doesn't suit someone else's bottom line, tough luck.
     
  11. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    What next? A ban on ugly people because we don't like their looks? Eugenics? State-sanctioned euthanasia?
     
  12. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    This whole thing is just a big repeat. We heard all this when XP came out. The DOS systems are obsolete, vulnerable, etc, and they need to go to make room for good systems like XP, which turned out to be the most vulnerable and heavily patched OS they ever made. XP was so secure that botnets became reality. Now XP is supposed to be retired to make room for the next "latest and greatest", which will have just as many or more problems than the system it's replacing before it's over.

    XP users, there's no need to play their game. Take it from those who've played this game for a lot longer. We 98 users have heard all this before, how we have to retire our old systems, stop resisting progress, get with the times, etc. Microsoft stopped patching our systems. Software and hardware vendors fell in line with their policy and started dropping 9X support. We've been there and we're still here. XP is popular enough that individuals and groups will start releasing unofficial patches and upgrades for it, just like they did and are still doing for 98. When this happens, it'll become an even better OS than it is now, just like our 98 systems have. If you enjoy tweaking and modifying your systems, you'll enjoy these times. You can stand in the way of progress any time you want to. It's going in circles anyway. Just stop and wait for it to come back around. For me, it's come back around for 98, WinME, 2K, and now XP.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2010
  13. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,785
    Wow, some pretty heated comments here. If you want to stick with XP for 10 more years, nobody can stop you, provided your hardware holds up. However, eventually most people are forced to move on and buy new hardware, and with that, of course, comes the latest and greatest from MS. There is simply no avoiding that fact of life. You may not have the funds or the desire to buy a new PC now, but when you do, and you will eventually, then you'll get whatever MS is selling at that time. Period.

    I believe from what I have heard and read, that my Win 7 x64 is much safer and more secure in general than my XP 32, out of the box. I don't know all the details, so I can't give you a mile long list of bullets proving it. But I bet if we both did the research, we'd find this to be true.

    You can't really say it's the same old story with every new Win release. It's not. Win98 was so so, Win 2000 was great, XP was not so great, Vista64 was a dog, but more secure than XP. I think 7 x64 is the best thing they've done yet, in all ways.

    I guess this argument and thread could go on forever, with the die hard XP fans fighting till the death, and the Win 7 fans telling them to just move on. Do what you like. But my first point still stands. In the long run, you WILL move on, whether you think you will or not, simply because your hardware WILL eventully die or become ridiculously slow compared to new machines, and you'll have to buy something new, and no, it won't run XP because there won't be any drivers for the new hardware anymore.

    I don't have much more to add, so I'll watch as everyone else whips themselves up into a regular frenzy over all this.

    Cheers.... :)
     
  14. Boost

    Boost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,293
    Hilarious :argh:

    I've never been hacked, malware infested,etc,but yet since I'm running XP, I better be watchin over my back!

    Thanks,I needed a laugh for today.
     
  15. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    There's no frenzy. Whenever I pick up a PC, I convert it to a multiboot unit and add more operating systems to it, starting with 98. With so many people thinking they must "get with the times", used PCs are abundant. Just picked up a Dell Dimension for nothing. Hardware won't be an issue for a long, long time. I don't know how you figure the hardware will slow down. If a system is maintained, it doesn't lose performance. The only way that's a problem is if you start putting new operating systems on old hardware, and that's because they're deliberately making the operating systems more demanding on the hardware in order to force sales. If you go in the opposite direction, an older OS on newer hardware, you can build a system that makes the best look slow.
    It's about time they did something about the pathetically insecure "out of the box" settings. Comparing out of the box settings says absolutelu nothing about the quality or security of the OS, but does speak volumes about Microsofts care for their customers. IMO, the only reason Vista and Win-7 are more secure "out of the box" is because their old default security settings was getting them bad publicity and probably costing them customers. Comparing the systems when they were released doesn't prove much either. They were all pretty buggy in their first year. I prefer to judge them based on what they evolved into. With 98 for instance, MS never did address it biggest problems but others have, and have made it into a much better system than MS ever did. I have no boubt that talented people will do the same for XP.

    One item we agree on here is Vista. IMO, it's WinME (a buggy mess) all over again. The other is for the typical user with just enough computer skill to turn it on and get infected. For them, someone has to deal with all the issues as they can't. That said, the average user isn't at this forum. Most of the users here can do much better than an out of the box system.
     
  16. katio

    katio Guest

    Windows Vista and up are more secure by design, that's a simple fact and no one who's ever looked into kernel and OS design and security will seriously deny this. However do not confuse secure design with infection rate, or "I'm using X and never have been infected". These are almost completely separate issues in the real world.
    End of story.
     
  17. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,049
    Location:
    USA
    The problem with a lot of the XP userbase is that they are still running as full admin, which is the default on a clean install of XP. A limited account is too difficult for a lot of average folks to set up, so that isn't going to change. In that situation Vista or 7 with UAC left on is a far better option for them than what they are doing.
     
  18. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    There is the core of the problem. In the earlier days of Windows, average folks didn't have PCs. Those that did had some knowledge of how they worked and how to make them do what they wanted. They had to because the earlier systems didn't do it all for you, like the newer ones. PC users then were a lot more savvy than they are now. Then MS got this brilliant brain cramp of making it so easy, a child could run one. The result was an insane number of users who knew nothing about what the equipment they were using, but were running as administrators by default. Microsoft's brilliant ideas created these users, and all the rest of the problems that these users made possible, like botnets. It's taken them until Vista to begin correcting that mistake, but the damage is done. Users have been conditioned to expect to be able to do anything they want, easily. The problem never was the operating systems themselves. All of them can be sufficiently secured for daily use. The users here prove that. It's their default settings and the type of users those settings created that has always been the problem.

    Viruses, malware, trojans, etc all existed and were known about well before all these "average folk" users were created. There's no way that MS didn't see most of these problems coming with the creation of systems a child can use, but the desire for sales and big profits took priority over the problems this would create for all users to come. That decision is directly responsible for most of the problems with the internet today. And their answer to the mess they've created? More planned obsolescense, leading to more sales and more profits for them and a choice between more expense or more problems for everyone else.
     
  19. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,833
    @ noone_particular

    Re post # 18

    No need for me to quote everything, as i agree :thumb:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.