5 ms·

You completely misunderstood the point but I'm glad you left.

orf 10y ago
> Secondly, Microsoft has stripped us of controlling Windows updates. > It was ostensibly done to improve the user experience by keeping the system up to date and perhaps malware free, but the truth is that a built-in antimalware protection in Windows is simply horrible (according to various AV comparisons Microsoft Essentials misses over 20% of in the wild malware) Not much to misunderstand though. You attempt to say it's a bad thing that Microsoft is attempting to keep their software always up to date... because Essentials is bad? Also you should perhaps cite your statistics rather than pull them out of thin air. Essentials got 98.1% detection rate here[1], 94% 'real world protection' here[2] and 84 points here[3]. It's not perfect, but it beats some paid for competitors and is a lot less of a resource hog than something like Norton. > said updates mean nothing for security because over 90% of infections happen due to the user actions (like downloading and installing dubious applications). No Windows update can prevent such a behaviour. That's simply not true. Where the hell are you getting 90% from, and how can you possibly go from that number to the conclusion that 'No Windows update can prevent such behaviour' (and so updates are... also bad??). Updates are good. The user might download a dodgy word document but hey look it was an update got through Windows update that meant she won't get compromised when she opens it. The user might click on a link that is sent via an email, but hey look it's an update to Windows that stops their PC getting rammed by that exploit pack. Sorry but the whole article stinks of anti-MS FUD and anyone who attempts to argue against keeping (or features that keep) their PC up to date is ignorant at best. 1. http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/avc_fdt_201603_en.pdf http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/av... 2. http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/avc_prot_2016a_en.pdf http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/av... 3. http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/avc_rem_2015_en.pdf http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/av...
- mynameislegion 10y ago
  I'm attempting to say that the user is given no freedom to choose when and if to install updates. MS keeps on releasing broken updates which render thousands of PCs broken. If you're OK with that then I'm fine. Secondly, it's a myth that Windows must be updated to stay secure. It's such a huge myth it's actually cringe worthy. If you're at home windows updates are needed only to keep your IE/Edge installation secure. That's all. All incoming network ports are blocked on your router by default. And if you're stupid enough to rely on MS Security Essentials then I will stop arguing with you. That's not an AV - that's a huge hole. Unrequired updates are rarely good. > Sorry but the whole article stinks of anti-MS FUD and anyone who attempts to argue against keeping (or features that keep) their PC up to date is ignorant at best. You took just one item on the list to attack without even giving valid sound arguments and now you say the whole article is anti MS FUD. With that I bid farewell to you. You have yet to become a decent debator. P.S. The truth is Windows has had some remote vulnerabilities in regard to fonts rendering and such but they are very difficult to exploit (and I haven't heard of any circulating in the wild exploits). Again in 99% of cases users get infected by downloading shady files from the net or opening unrequested e-mail attachments. Windows updates will NEVER save you from that.
  - orf 10y ago
    Edit: You're comical to the point of absurdity. > The truth is Windows has had some remote vulnerabilities in regard to fonts rendering and such but they are very difficult to exploit (and I haven't heard of any circulating in the wild exploits). You say absurd things like 'Secondly, it's a myth that Windows must be updated to stay secure. It's such a huge myth it's actually cringe worthy.', then in the same comment talk about how actually there are pretty serious remote vulnerabilities that don't require user interaction (or some, like clicking something), but that's OK because "I haven't heard of any circulating in the wild exploits". :') http://www.networkworld.com/article/2969896/microsoft-subnet/microsoft-patches-windows-10-edge-4-critical-holes-2-exploits-in-the-wild.html http://www.networkworld.com/article/2969896/microsoft-subnet... https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/one-font-vulnerability-to-rule-them-all.html https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/one-font-vu... http://wccftech.com/december-patch-tuesday-fixes-zero-day-vulnerabilities/ http://wccftech.com/december-patch-tuesday-fixes-zero-day-vu... http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/hacking-team-leak-uncovers-another-windows-zero-day-ms-releases-patch/ http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/h... ----- > You took just one item on the list to attack without even giving valid sound arguments The onus is on you to explain why protecting your machine with security updates is a bad thing. Making up statistics and misunderstanding basic security concepts doesn't count as an argument. > Again in 99% of cases users get infected by downloading shady files from the net or opening unrequested e-mail attachments. Windows updates will NEVER save you from that. That's so stupid it's laughable. Here's one case: the user downloads a malformed .docx file that would cause a buffer overflow in Word and compromise their machine, but instead the horrible Microsoft overlords shoved unneeded security updates down their poor throats and instead Word just displayed a message that the file is corrupted. I bet that user then thinks to themselves "Damn you Microsoft and you're oppressive security update regime! I opened the damn file, I want to be infected!". > I'm attempting to say that the user is given no freedom to choose when and if to install updates. Good, security ones need to be always installed right away. Average Joe doesn't give a flying f* about patch management, he doesn't want to get hit by the latest exploit out in the wild. > MS keeps on releasing broken updates which render thousands of PCs broken. If you're OK with that then I'm fine. Citation needed. Also thousands out of what, 1.25 billion? I'll take those percentages any day, a hell of a lot better than most companies. MS also has an absolutely ridiculous patch testing setup involving tens of thousands of versions of windows across lots of different hardware. But of course that doesn't matter to a zealot. > Secondly, it's a myth that Windows must be updated to stay secure. It's such a huge myth it's actually cringe worthy. That's the crux of it isn't it. Ignorance. How can you type that with a straight face? By all means keep rolling around with an unpatched Windows machine, thinking this is 1999 where the biggest threat is internet worms spreading via open ports and hoping your cheap, exploit-infested router running the cheapest, oldest software they could find is going to help you. > And if you're stupid enough to rely on MS Security Essentials then I will stop arguing with you. That's not an AV - that's a huge hole. Microsoft's efforts with Essentials are commendable, how can you not see that. If you've got 1.25 billion active devices running Windows and even 25% of those don't run any form of antivirus (I'm positive the number is much higher than that) then that's 312,500,000 unprotected machines. Releasing a free antivirus that's effective 90% of the time is a great thing to do for internet security as a whole. But hey, just ignore that and keep lambasting them for whatever bad experiences you had with Windows.

orf 10y ago

> Secondly, Microsoft has stripped us of controlling Windows updates. > It was ostensibly done to improve the user experience by keeping the system up to date and perhaps malware free, but the truth is that a built-in antimalware protection in Windows is simply horrible (according to various AV comparisons Microsoft Essentials misses over 20% of in the wild malware) Not much to misunderstand though. You attempt to say it's a bad thing that Microsoft is attempting to keep their software always up to date... because Essentials is bad? Also you should perhaps cite your statistics rather than pull them out of thin air. Essentials got 98.1% detection rate here[1], 94% 'real world protection' here[2] and 84 points here[3]. It's not perfect, but it beats some paid for competitors and is a lot less of a resource hog than something like Norton. > said updates mean nothing for security because over 90% of infections happen due to the user actions (like downloading and installing dubious applications). No Windows update can prevent such a behaviour. That's simply not true. Where the hell are you getting 90% from, and how can you possibly go from that number to the conclusion that 'No Windows update can prevent such behaviour' (and so updates are... also bad??). Updates are good. The user might download a dodgy word document but hey look it was an update got through Windows update that meant she won't get compromised when she opens it. The user might click on a link that is sent via an email, but hey look it's an update to Windows that stops their PC getting rammed by that exploit pack. Sorry but the whole article stinks of anti-MS FUD and anyone who attempts to argue against keeping (or features that keep) their PC up to date is ignorant at best. 1. http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/avc_fdt_201603_en.pdf http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/av... 2. http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/avc_prot_2016a_en.pdf http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/av... 3. http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/avc_rem_2015_en.pdf http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/av...

mynameislegion 10y ago
I'm attempting to say that the user is given no freedom to choose when and if to install updates. MS keeps on releasing broken updates which render thousands of PCs broken. If you're OK with that then I'm fine. Secondly, it's a myth that Windows must be updated to stay secure. It's such a huge myth it's actually cringe worthy. If you're at home windows updates are needed only to keep your IE/Edge installation secure. That's all. All incoming network ports are blocked on your router by default. And if you're stupid enough to rely on MS Security Essentials then I will stop arguing with you. That's not an AV - that's a huge hole. Unrequired updates are rarely good. > Sorry but the whole article stinks of anti-MS FUD and anyone who attempts to argue against keeping (or features that keep) their PC up to date is ignorant at best. You took just one item on the list to attack without even giving valid sound arguments and now you say the whole article is anti MS FUD. With that I bid farewell to you. You have yet to become a decent debator. P.S. The truth is Windows has had some remote vulnerabilities in regard to fonts rendering and such but they are very difficult to exploit (and I haven't heard of any circulating in the wild exploits). Again in 99% of cases users get infected by downloading shady files from the net or opening unrequested e-mail attachments. Windows updates will NEVER save you from that.
- orf 10y ago
  Edit: You're comical to the point of absurdity. > The truth is Windows has had some remote vulnerabilities in regard to fonts rendering and such but they are very difficult to exploit (and I haven't heard of any circulating in the wild exploits). You say absurd things like 'Secondly, it's a myth that Windows must be updated to stay secure. It's such a huge myth it's actually cringe worthy.', then in the same comment talk about how actually there are pretty serious remote vulnerabilities that don't require user interaction (or some, like clicking something), but that's OK because "I haven't heard of any circulating in the wild exploits". :') http://www.networkworld.com/article/2969896/microsoft-subnet/microsoft-patches-windows-10-edge-4-critical-holes-2-exploits-in-the-wild.html http://www.networkworld.com/article/2969896/microsoft-subnet... https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/one-font-vulnerability-to-rule-them-all.html https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/one-font-vu... http://wccftech.com/december-patch-tuesday-fixes-zero-day-vulnerabilities/ http://wccftech.com/december-patch-tuesday-fixes-zero-day-vu... http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/hacking-team-leak-uncovers-another-windows-zero-day-ms-releases-patch/ http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/h... ----- > You took just one item on the list to attack without even giving valid sound arguments The onus is on you to explain why protecting your machine with security updates is a bad thing. Making up statistics and misunderstanding basic security concepts doesn't count as an argument. > Again in 99% of cases users get infected by downloading shady files from the net or opening unrequested e-mail attachments. Windows updates will NEVER save you from that. That's so stupid it's laughable. Here's one case: the user downloads a malformed .docx file that would cause a buffer overflow in Word and compromise their machine, but instead the horrible Microsoft overlords shoved unneeded security updates down their poor throats and instead Word just displayed a message that the file is corrupted. I bet that user then thinks to themselves "Damn you Microsoft and you're oppressive security update regime! I opened the damn file, I want to be infected!". > I'm attempting to say that the user is given no freedom to choose when and if to install updates. Good, security ones need to be always installed right away. Average Joe doesn't give a flying f* about patch management, he doesn't want to get hit by the latest exploit out in the wild. > MS keeps on releasing broken updates which render thousands of PCs broken. If you're OK with that then I'm fine. Citation needed. Also thousands out of what, 1.25 billion? I'll take those percentages any day, a hell of a lot better than most companies. MS also has an absolutely ridiculous patch testing setup involving tens of thousands of versions of windows across lots of different hardware. But of course that doesn't matter to a zealot. > Secondly, it's a myth that Windows must be updated to stay secure. It's such a huge myth it's actually cringe worthy. That's the crux of it isn't it. Ignorance. How can you type that with a straight face? By all means keep rolling around with an unpatched Windows machine, thinking this is 1999 where the biggest threat is internet worms spreading via open ports and hoping your cheap, exploit-infested router running the cheapest, oldest software they could find is going to help you. > And if you're stupid enough to rely on MS Security Essentials then I will stop arguing with you. That's not an AV - that's a huge hole. Microsoft's efforts with Essentials are commendable, how can you not see that. If you've got 1.25 billion active devices running Windows and even 25% of those don't run any form of antivirus (I'm positive the number is much higher than that) then that's 312,500,000 unprotected machines. Releasing a free antivirus that's effective 90% of the time is a great thing to do for internet security as a whole. But hey, just ignore that and keep lambasting them for whatever bad experiences you had with Windows.