3 ms·

I guess I don't follow the "Look now". Every large piece of software has security vulnerabilities. If MS were refusing to patch their software I guess you'd h

by tw04 6y ago

I guess I don't follow the "Look now". Every large piece of software has security vulnerabilities. If MS were refusing to patch their software I guess you'd have a point - the fact they released a patch and people who didn't apply it are getting exploited isn't really relevant to whether or not bitcoin is bad for the planet. >their OS filled with malicious stuff and who knows what kind of backdoors is when exploited by hackers You're going to need some citations if you're going to claim windows server has intentional "malicious stuff and backdoors". That's a bold claim to make without evidence.

whoisninja 6y ago
https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html
- tw04 6y ago
  I'm sorry, they lose all credibility when they call forced updates "malware". We spent the entirety of the late-90s/early 2000s complaining that MS didn't force updates on users, so these massive worms were infecting half the internet with exploits that were patched YEARS earlier. It took moving a mountain to get MS to enforce patching of consumer systems, to sit here now and claim that's malware is both irresponsible and ridiculously short-sighted. Without mandatory patching, I can say without exaggeration that the entire internet would be less safe. Anyone spewing that nonsense is either too young to remember how horrible things were, or too stubborn to acknowledge it was the right thing to do whether they personally agree with it or not.
  - whoisninja 6y ago
    it doesn't matter, at the end of the day.. do you think open-source OS that is widely used and audited is more secure than closed source OS like Windows? most infosec community knows the answer. if you know yours well, good. I am not convincing anyone, anything. I just meant, there is value is looking at things objectively than reading some news articles or opinions said by some bigwigs.
jtdev 6y ago
Your timeline is off... most organizations were exploited long before the patch went out.
whoisninja 6y ago
mission critical software that are widely used are much better off being open-source for long term security, look upon it if you've time. I kindly suggest do that if you care about security. it's well known fact now, it was all the FUD by microsoft that this was not widely accepted previously. Do you think they have any incentive to be transparent about that? why does everyone have to pay forcefully for windows that comes with every laptop by default?

by tw04 6y ago

whoisninja 6y ago

https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html

tw04 6y ago
I'm sorry, they lose all credibility when they call forced updates "malware". We spent the entirety of the late-90s/early 2000s complaining that MS didn't force updates on users, so these massive worms were infecting half the internet with exploits that were patched YEARS earlier. It took moving a mountain to get MS to enforce patching of consumer systems, to sit here now and claim that's malware is both irresponsible and ridiculously short-sighted. Without mandatory patching, I can say without exaggeration that the entire internet would be less safe. Anyone spewing that nonsense is either too young to remember how horrible things were, or too stubborn to acknowledge it was the right thing to do whether they personally agree with it or not.
- whoisninja 6y ago
  it doesn't matter, at the end of the day.. do you think open-source OS that is widely used and audited is more secure than closed source OS like Windows? most infosec community knows the answer. if you know yours well, good. I am not convincing anyone, anything. I just meant, there is value is looking at things objectively than reading some news articles or opinions said by some bigwigs.

jtdev 6y ago

Your timeline is off... most organizations were exploited long before the patch went out.

whoisninja 6y ago

mission critical software that are widely used are much better off being open-source for long term security, look upon it if you've time. I kindly suggest do that if you care about security. it's well known fact now, it was all the FUD by microsoft that this was not widely accepted previously. Do you think they have any incentive to be transparent about that? why does everyone have to pay forcefully for windows that comes with every laptop by default?