9 ms·
"Actually, every single Windows PC with an internet connection that has been used before March 14 should be considered irrevocably compromised." March 14 of wh
by rsync 9y ago
"Actually, every single Windows PC with an internet connection that has been used before March 14 should be considered irrevocably compromised."
March 14 of what year ?
I would say 2000 but I am open to discussion ...
- spacemanmatt 9y agoI sent my first packet-of-death to an unprotected Windows machine in 1996, so...
- samstave 9y ago1997 here :-) hat was that XP xploit app from back then... I cant recall what it was called...
- colecut 9y agoback orifice? subseven?
- freeflight 9y agoSubseven was just a trojan, tho a really fancy one I had lots of fun with as a kid.
- samstave 9y agoBack orifice!
- rhizome 9y agoredbutton?
- KGIII 9y agoTo be clear XP wasn't available in 1997.
- jbergstroem 9y agoteardrop?
- spacemanmatt 9y agolandattack
- pferde 9y agoWinnuke? That was way before XP, though, I remember it crashed windows 95 and 98 first edition.
- dredmorbius 9y agoWinNT 4.0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_4.0 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_4.0
- partisan 9y agoI used an IRC client called BootFucker Pro back then that had all of the weaponry built in. Those were the good old days.
- rhaps0dy 9y agoYou're implying that from March 14, 2000, Windows was very secure. I think you're getting this backwards. If you say 2017, you and your children-comments' dates will be covered, because they are before March 14 2017.
- kbenson 9y agoNo, the implication is that Windows prior to that was insecure. That does not mean it's secure afterwards, just that we know it was insecure previously. You are extrapolating without evidence.
- Whitestrake 9y agoI think it's more accurate to say that the comment is explicitly stating that Windows was insecure prior to that date, the implication from which is that it was not as insecure after (else why make the distinction of the date at all).
- kbenson 9y ago> the implication from which is that it was not as insecure after I'm saying there is no specific implication without confirmation from the author as the statement can be taken either way, and any you think you see is more to do with your state of mind than the statement itself. It's a statement about what we know. We know something to be factually true prior to that date. Afterwards is open to debate, and is opinion. Making a statement about that the period we have facts for does not imply anything about the period we do not have facts for.
- Whitestrake 9y agoI feel like you and I are not operating on the same definition of implication. In the above comment when using the word implication my intent was "a conclusion that can be drawn despite not being explicitly stated". To be unambiguous, the explicit statement is that computers prior to a specific date should be considered to be compromised. The conclusion that can be drawn, based on the fact that the writer specified that date, is that later dates did not qualify for the same statement, because the conditions were not sufficient. That is to say, that they were not insecure enough for the writer to include in his comment. That is the implication, despite the writer not saying outright that computers after that date were "secure". The conclusion assumes the credibility of the writer, and the intellectual honesty of their comment (i.e. they didn't put that date there just to be facetious) but I believe that's a fair assumption given the context of questioning the semantics. I also note that the actual implication here is not that computers are secure after that date, or even that computers are insecure but not compromised. The implication is, in fact, that while computers might be compromised after that date, the writer doesn't believe it's worth advising people to ASSUME they are compromised.
- 80211 9y agoPeople who don't run Windows shouldn't get cocky! There are many, many attacks on Linux: Here's one in the news from just last week. A ransomware where the victim agreed to pay the equivalent of US$1MM in bitcoin. https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/06/web-host-agrees-to-pay-1m-after-its-hit-by-linux-targeting-ransomware/ https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/06/web-host-agrees-to-...
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 9y agoSomething to keep in mind. They were running: Apache version 1.3.36 and PHP version 5.1.4 It's not like a brand new Ubuntu installation connected to the open Internet will suddenly be pwned. The owners of this company were beyond inept.
- astrodust 9y agoSeeing Apache 1 in the wild makes me a bit nostalgic. What kind of utter lunatic would use that for their company today?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- H1Supreme 9y agoLord have mercy, Apache 1? That's what you get bro.
- duskwuff 9y agoAnd that was probably the tip of the iceberg with regard to their outdated software -- Apache 1.3.36 and PHP 5.1.4 are both from around 2006, so I'd bet everything else in their stack was similarly old. Failing to update anything for 10+ years will get you in trouble, regardless of what OS it's on.
- Piskvorrr 9y agoThat would be akin to running Windows XP. People running Anfient Monftrosities should not get cocky in general, attacks on old systems are only getting worse with time.
- pyre 9y ago> On Tuesday, March 14, 2017, Microsoft issued security bulletin MS17-010,[7] which detailed the flaw and announced that patches had been released for all Windows versions that were currently supported at that time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EternalBlue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EternalBlue
- tr1ck5t3r 9y agoMono cultures always die out. You have 3 dominant loop based OS'es that run most of the World, do you see a problem yet?