Verno wrote on Aug 8, 2016, 16:16:
NAT is not security and given the sheer number of security issues with most consumer routers I wouldn't rely on them either.

What a strange statement. A PC with an exploitable firewall is going to be ripe for automated attacks, as opposed to one which is also behind a router. A number of which also have stateful packet inspection.

As for the router exploits, they're usually about gaining unauthorized access to router itself, which is a completely different story. This could happen to anyone dumb enough to use factory firmware, regardless of whether they patch their Windows or not.

Microsoft security patches are very fast these days by the way.

Enjoy being the early adopter then.

With Win10's neverending stream of barely vetted patches, this is only going to get worse.

I don't really know of any consumer software that does decent intrusion detection (lol at anyone who even suggest something like ZoneAlarm), pfSense or DIY is the only realistic option there.

I'm not sure you understand what I mean by intrusion detection. Those same vulnerabilities that Microsoft, Firefox and Chrome close in their updates, are often closed faster with Symantec Intrusion Prevention. They scan for the exploit patterns which are meant to create buffer overruns in your browser or kernel or whatever, and stop them before they reach the target.

Kaspersky probably has something like that, too.

If you're going to use an old operating system like Windows 7 then you should definitely have Windows Update on, just pick the updates you want at least.

That's what I do, with a generous delay, to let the early adopters take the brunt of it.

I remember when unpatched XP machines could be infected in minutes due to all of the port scanning and automated blasting of various exploits, NAT didn't save anyone then either.

Source?

Cluster updates are not at all preferable to constant updates as anyone who has been around before WSUS can attest to. Large updates tend to break a lot of things and while the new update processes have their own issues, I find them fairly minor by comparison.

On the flipside, it allows one to wait until Microsoft reissues the ones which cause system instability.

And also, wait for tech community to figure out when they're retconning Win10 "telemetry" into previous OSes.

If you trust Microsoft to build the operating system you use every day then I don't see how you fail to trust them to deliver updates for it. If I really didn't trust Microsoft I simply would not use their products.

I guess I should throw out my Nvidia card then, too, because there's tangible evidence of them destroying people's hardware with bad drivers.

Or, you know, I can be smart about it, and buffer the driver updates.

There's this odd disconnect where people seemingly hate Windows or Microsoft while they continually use the product happily every day.

I hate Windows 10, and I went through quite some lengths to replace it on my new laptop, so I don't actually use THAT product.

Microsoft has plenty of shitty policies and by all means criticize them for it but if people really distrust or dislike the company that much then speak with your wallet and use something else. Actions speak louder than words and all that.

I believe what you describe is a symptom of BPD, or borderline personality disorder. It's an unenviable mental state, as we otherwise operate within the real world of grays and compromises, rather than black-and-white absolutes.

RedEye9 wrote on Aug 8, 2016, 14:53:
I am glad people recognize my superiority, it makes me feel good.
But it is ok to question me no matter what some might think.

If you turn off automatic updating, and you don't remember to be vigilant, your PC will rarely if ever get patched. You'll be one of a minority with wide-open security holes.

Most of which can't even reach your average PC behind a router. And are faster stopped by an antivirus with network intrusion detection than laggy Microsoft patches. And have new security holes or plain instability in them, which could as well be more severe than the old ones, given Microsoft's lackluster QA.

As I said before, installing their 0-day patches is like installing NVidia drivers on release day. I prefer to do this in update packs, after all the scandals and crashes have been investigated and fixed.

El Pit wrote on Aug 7, 2016, 17:00:
HorrorScope, this is about emotions, not about facts! ;)

... as you demonstrate with remarkable clarity.

I was referring to them suddenly promising pie-in-the-sky features like building your own space stations.

coughstarcitizencough

NetHead wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 23:52:
It would be far more worth their while to simply make their new Source Engine run Vulkan (no support for DirectX) and make it free to use with decent documentation. That could have a lot of benefits both for Valve and the gaming industry to and extent.

It's a bit sad that 20 years ago John Carmack basically attempted the same thing with using his tremendous influence to push OpenGL onto Windows platform.

Technically, he succeeded, and by now we should be able to have OpenGL-based games which are competitive with DirectX, and easy to port to Linux.

But it appears that driver manufacturers have been slacking off, and Windows OpenGL support is not suitable for anything serious.

I'd buy THAT for a dollar!

Ok, maybe for 20 dollars. But not for freaking 60 dollars.

Razumen wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 23:03:
Lol, it's funny that you accuse me of lacking content, because everything you've said so far about Classic Shell is complete hearsay. And yet with some googling, I've found nothing to back up what you're claiming about Classic Shell, other than there was a hacked installer that compromised people's machines when they installed the W10 Anniversary Release: http://www.classicshell.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=6434

I'm well aware of the hack, and it has nothing to do with the issue. Win10's compatibility framework doesn't detect malware installers.

So, what makes it hearsay is that only this person posted about this problem?

http://www.osnews.com/story/29332/Anniversary_Update_hides_programs_forces_Skype_on_users

Well, here's another one for you:
http://betanews.com/2016/08/02/windows-10-anniversary-update-start-menu-2/#comment-2819702402

I bet for most people it's a minor issue, they don't yet understand what this kind of control really means, so they don't bother reporting it.

But I fully expect to hear more complaints about MS disabling people's software as Win10 continues to bulldoze user trust.

Enjoy the ride. I'm done wasting time on this thread.

Razumen wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 21:23:
MS doesn't and quite literally CAN'T prevent every application from having problems when they update something. Saying that they "attacked" Classic Shell when it most likely was a victim of unintended consequences is quite literally a tinfoil hat conspiracy.

We don't know if that version of Classic Shell had "problems" with the Anniversary Update, and what their actual severity was, because someone at Microsoft manually entered it into an "incompatibility database" which disabled it and made it unsearchable in Start Menu.

Maybe the only problem would've been that you can't swap the taskbar icons, or that the systray icons are in the wrong order.

Now all that agency is taken away from the user, because Microsoft DECIDES and ENFORCES what's compatible and what's not.

So regardless of their motives toward Classic Shell specifically, regardless of even the program that's being affected, it is an attack, and it's not an innocent software conflict that happened without human intervention.

If such displays of Microsoft's totalitarian control over your system do not make you wary, then, well, how do I put it without insulting your intellectual capacity... I really can't.

For this, and most of your other claims, Occam's Razor gives a much better idea of what's going on.

Lazy content-free retort. As to be expected.

This comment was edited on Aug 6, 2016, 22:50.

The tinfoil hat expression is about conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories have a distinct quality of being unproveable. Yet there is clear factual, ongoing, documented evidence of the disaster that is unfolding with Win10's every step.

Its failure as OS-as-a-service is shown in above article I linked, with Anniversary Update being a trainwreck. Its filesystem-spying EULA and undoing user settings have all been well-documented. So is Microsoft's incredible arrogance as of late in its attitude toward the user.

Perhaps you don't understand the radical policy shift that happened with Win10, but that is your burden to bear.

When all you offer in response is evasion and ridicule, one has to ask who is really wearing the tinfoil in this thread. You sir are a shill. And a mediocre one at that.

nin wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 10:56:
Classic Shell did an update on Tuesday or so and works fine. I'm not sure what he's talking about there. I have it and anniversary running on a machine with zero issues.

So you have nothing to refute the article's claim that Win10 attacked Classic Shell, because Classic Shell released a timely patch to circumvent it. Meanwhile the patch notes itself say that it was for "compatibility" with Anniversary Update.

However, if you did not have the latest update, Win10 will DISABLE that piece of software you use, because the OS-as-a-service process allows for major under-the-hood changes and thus makes the necessary attempts at "walled gardening" by disabling "outdated" software have already started.

See, one flawed idea requires the other flawed idea to work.

By the way, I can't wait until Win10-as-a-service starts wrecking security software which is not going to auto-update its executables in time, or isn't even capable of doing so.

Wonder how long people will tolerate living on this shifting sandmass, full of surprises.

Just because your head is clearly buried in the said sand, doesn't change the actual reality:

The Case Against Win10 Anniversary Update Grows

10 reasons you shouldn't upgrade to Windows 10

And no, it doesn't force you to make a skype login. Not heard a peep out of it. Never used it, see no reason to.

And I never said it does. However, it does install Skype, and if you uninstalled it earlier, it will use your credentials to login, as the article says.

I can honestly say the fearmongering and incorrect information (as trumpboy perfectly illustrates) is worse than the OS. Don't trust that guy as being truthful.

Since my opinions have less worth than other people's, perhaps I should do a public service by wearing some kind of identifier, like perhaps an armband of some sort

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Aug 5, 2016, 23:15:

Agent.X7 wrote on Aug 5, 2016, 11:25:
I wish they would just redo them all in the new engines so you can at least SEE them on modern PCs. I tried to play SC, but man it was too hard on my eyes.

That's because all the games were made for the era when we still had interlacing. It's just a pain in the ass.

I don't think he was talking about the console version.

Meanwhile, Win10 Anniversary Update attacks Classic Shell.

THOU SHALT NOT USE UI WHICH IS NOT BLESSED BY SATYA NADELLA OF THE GREAT MICROSOFT

THOU SHALT USE SKYPE AS PRESCRIBED TO YOU BY THE GREAT WINDOWS 10 COMMANDMENTS

http://www.osnews.com/story/29332/Anniversary_Update_hides_programs_forces_Skype_on_users

As you can see, it's pretty easy for MS now to fuck with software anyone writes, because most people will be proles running Home edition with auto-updates non-disableable via civilized method.

Enjoy your OS-as-a-service, folks!!!!111

Oh, this is beautiful.

Best case scenario is that SC HD will be SC with SC2 models and much of its art assets. Which is FINE.

However, Blizzard has no replacement models for Diablo2 or Warcraft 3, and they're not going to be spending MASSIVE resources on doing that.

Diablo2 will never be HD'd properly. WC3 HD may come out with cranked up texture resolution but not actual model overhaul.

descender wrote on Aug 4, 2016, 08:07:
A 17 year old problem that became relevant in Windows 8 is being blamed on Windows 10.

You do realize that Windows 7 suffers this same exact exploit, right? You don't try very hard, do you.

If you didn't act like the 12-year old "gotcha" troll maybe people would take your advice more seriously.

Actually... The flaw leaks local Windows credentials for any version of the OS, however the hacker can't do anything with them unless they can breach into your local network, which is impossible in most cases.

If you're using VPN, hooray, they get to use your VPN account for free.

But if you're a silly prole who was actually pushed by Microsoft into using their "universal sign-in", i.e. the terrible idea of using your online credentials to authenticate your local network, the idea that Win8 pushed first, and Win10 practically shoves down your throat - the hacker will have access to everything your MS account is tied to online.

This means, Email, file storage, Xbox live, other services like MS Healthvault, which can be tied to all kinds of deeply personal information.

So yes, the "big bad" payoff of this flaw does not exist in Windows 7 and earlier.

What is dead may never die

descender wrote on Aug 1, 2016, 23:39:

You said non-internet-facing systems.

No, HE said he had just stopped supporting a Windows 95 machine. I said it must be non-internet because if he had a windows 95 system on the internet he should be fired. Try to keep up. :)

Your reply was ambiguous and addressed his whole post, from which I naturally derived that you were attempting to say that the updates which will be provided for Win7 in the future are for corporate users, and therefore somehow not useful for home users.

If this is about Win95, then you're not even arguing against the validity of his argument that Win7 will be in fact getting security updates for a long long time. OK.

That's great, you've once again taken your own personal situation and pretended it applies to everyone. Are you upgrading every moms computer out there? The single old women don't get upgrades because they don't have sons? Come on.

The single old woman out there who has no son, will get her UI arbitrarily changed by Microsoft, which will give her anxiety, and eventually she'll get a BSOD from another update, and take her laptop to Geek Squad, but in a hurry she will have forgotten her glasses, so she'll keep squinting left and right looking for Best Buy, until she will ram her car into a bus full of schoolchildren.

Crawling out of the overturned car, among thick smoke and charred bodies, she will curse the day she started getting Depo Provera shots, which rendered her sterile, and quiet tears will stream down her weathered cheeks.

IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT??

descender wrote on Aug 1, 2016, 23:29:


Corporate systems that are controlled by a network security policy that can't be altered every time some random employee reads some tinfoil on the internet.

You said non-internet-facing systems. Either way, that argument is pretty fringe-y. Those security patches will work just fine for the home user.

When I said that "regular desktop home users should have upgraded"... why the hell do you guys think I'm talking about you? This isn't about you. I'm talking about your moms. Literally.

If my mom's machine was befallen with the misfortune of having Win10 installed on it, I would do my absolute best to rid it of spyware and castrate the auto-update services.

Then I would install a reputable antivirus which scans Internet traffic for known exploit attack vectors.

I would update her machine every couple of months, with System Restore active, of course.

The last thing I need to have, is her computer BSODing or starting to overheat or whatever-the-shit because MS just decided to replace Windows kernel with something their 19-year-old intern wrote.

Or they decide to change the Windows UI features that my mom would've gotten used to. Software As A Service and all that.

descender wrote on Aug 1, 2016, 23:15:
Those are not regular end users. Those are corporate non-internet facing systems.

Corporate systems are behind routers, but they do use the Internet. Home users are also behind routers. They too... use the Internet.

It's not that hard to understand.

W10 and the new Server2016 Core aren't going anywhere any time soon.

Is it because you wrote them?

descender wrote on Aug 1, 2016, 19:14:
Barring the .5% of super-users that will get by regardless of updates... everyone else absolutely should have upgraded to windows 10 for free. They absolutely should have as much of their system upgraded and maintained by MS as humanly possible.

You're here till Thursday and I should try the veal?

Not upgrading was mostly foolish and advising "regular" users not to do was extremely bad advice. People are stupid and shouldn't be trusted to handle these things, this is how botnets run rampant and DDOS attacks become so effective.

Erm. This would be a good argument if Microsoft released security updates which never break anything. In reality, of course, you get shit like this:
Win7 patch is malware

Or this:
Win7 patch is BSOD

How quickly people forget.

Microsoft, much like NVidia, is using their userbase as free beta-testers for their software. They're saving money on extensive QA departments because they rely on early adopters.

There was an incident a few years back when a Realtek driver was CORRUPTING DATA, i.e. actual files that you download, and it had WHQL certification from Microsoft!

Microsoft's QA is abysmal, and it cannot be trusted. In light of this, I would argue that those who leave updates to install blindly, are the dumb ones.

I understand that their weird nag campaign bugged a lot of people, but that doesn't "break the trust" of the update service. People have this weird idea that they actually "own" their Windows software and deserve total control over it. In reality you haven't actually "owned" anything more than a license to run Windows since 95.

There's a fundamental difference between the traditional Windows model and the SaaS model they pushed with Windows 10. They know that it will fuck with people's work, and then corporations will sodomize Microsoft, which is why the LTSB version of Win10 is limited to conservative (mostly security) updates.

The "little guy" is inconsequential, of course. But they know. They know it sucks, which is why with LTSB edition they behave like a bully who is suddenly all shy and friendly in the presence of a bigger bully.

They were technically and fundamentally correct in pushing Windows 10 upgrade notices as security updates so that no one skipped installing them. Not updating and continuing to use an older OS is a security risk that all users should be aware of and the new OS contains new security features that everyone should be utilizing.

The attack vectors themselves are limited, and generally they remain the same for every Windows OS. The majority of those exploits wouldn't even execute unless your machine is directly connected to the Internet, aka routerless or in the DMZ mode.

Others would be relying on the user to be dumb, which most of them are. You can't fix stupid with Windows 10.

Windows 10 is going to be proactively updated as much as possible and receive 0-day updates if necessary to address major issues as they arise. Windows 7 will continue to get updates... sure... but when? How frequently? No one can be certain of that.

I'm not so sure there's such a thing as true 0-day updates for an OS. If there is, it is a pretty bad thing.

You know who is the first line of defense when it comes to closing holes in Windows? Certain antivirus companies.

For example, Symantec's Intrusion Prevention feature is a packet interceptor which looks for patterns designed to create buffer overruns and other known exploit types in Windows OS, and not just the OS itself, but any exploitable program (like a browser) that is receiving TCP traffic which can potentially break it.

This system can actually stop threats before there are virus signatures generated for them, as long as their attack patterns are known to the system. It also stops them even if your browser or OS weren't yet patched against them.

Such systems, in modern times, should be used by everyone, because it is a far more stable and timely solution to have an antivirus company take care of it within their very specific and sturdy framework, than wait for Microsoft to get its shit together and release a patch which alters (potentially destabilizes) crucial system files and then starts nagging you to restart the system, after which you hope for no surprises.

In regards to installing batches of MS security updates, the same practice applies as to NVidia drivers - wait a month or two, see if there are cries of people with systems fried by any particular latest patch.