4 ms·
In my opinion, Windows Update is essentially malware. Ive been running without updates for years, even since Windows 7. Works fine.
by svnpenn 4y ago
In my opinion, Windows Update is essentially malware. Ive been running without updates for years, even since Windows 7. Works fine.
- josephcsible 4y agoIt works fine in the same way that a car with no seat belts and air bags does.
- exodust 4y agoReminds me of the pro-vaccine memes likening vaccines to seat belts. An incompatible, overly-simplified emotive analogy for both vaccines and windows updates. It's almost like you believe your world to be threatening and dangerous without Microsoft's software rules to keep you safe.
- 0xcoffee 4y agoIt is because there is decades of history of unpatched devices being used as vectors for ddos, entrypoints for horizontal movements inside a secure networks etc. If you pay attention to the Ukrainian conflict, you will see that the cyber-warfare is going strong (especially in the energy sector), and the internet is indeed a 'threatening' place. Just because you don't consider yourself an interesting target doesn't mean you won't be compromised. Yes it's unfortunate that MS packages both bug fixes and 'features' in their update process. But as other comments have said, it is better then to migrate away from Windows to another OS which you can keep up to date. There are many layers to a good defense, but for a regular consumer, simply keeping devices up to date is a low effort way of reducing attack surface area. I wouldn't run any unpatched device with internet access, be it windows, linux, anything. I recommend the book "This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends: The Cyberweapons" for a non-technical but interesting read about this topic.
- exodust 4y ago> "I wouldn't run any unpatched device with internet access" You wouldn't go Sunday driving without a helmet. Got it. It's not a binary game, patched vs unpatched. Safe vs falling down a cliff. Otherwise every piece of software is in either an unpatched state, or discontinued. As soon as you patch software, it's now in an unpatched state relative to the next patch/product update which is a certain event. If Grandma leaves her old Windows 95 PC exposed to the internet, we might use scary language like "cyber-warfare" and "internet is threatening" to help convince Grandma to upgrade. But the difference between a modern system patched only a few months ago or last year and "today" is only a bunch of unlikely exploitable edge cases, and a whole lot of product update gunk. Typical patch notes: "possible code injection when unlikely event A happens at the same time as unlikely event B.". Things that bring regular consumers undone in the world of online mishaps, are manual blunders like having their email hacked, or believing the person on the phone who says they're from Microsoft. Patches don't help with the most common pain points. Just because Microsoft wants "60 days" to be the most you can go without updating Windows, doesn't mean that 90 days or 180 or 360 days is some kind of industry-agreed threat to the internet. Being "unpatched" beyond the rigid rules you've subscribed to, is not a dilemma worth linking to books about cyberweapons.
- josephcsible 4y ago> As soon as you patch software, it's now in an unpatched state relative to the next patch/product update which is a certain event. Why do you bother taking showers? You're just going to start getting dirty again as soon as you get out. > But the difference between a modern system patched only a few months ago or last year and "today" is only a bunch of unlikely exploitable edge cases, and a whole lot of product update gunk. > Typical patch notes: "possible code injection when unlikely event A happens at the same time as unlikely event B.". This isn't true. A lot of new vulnerabilities are easily exploitable.
- exodust 4y ago> Why do you bother taking showers? Because our bodies accumulate and generate dirt over time which needs washing off. Software doesn't accumulate dirt or generate problems over time, so your analogy doesn't fit. > This isn't true. We are not playing "who knows the truth", we're having a discussion. What I said is not false. The vast majority of typical patch notes detail vulnerabilities which can happen only when certain variables align. "Easily exploitable" may be true, provided certain other unlikely conditions are met, such as the attacker already gaining access to your system in order to exploit said vulnerability. This is not a "seat belts" vs "no seat belts" risk. I maintain that the risk from not embracing whatever tech giant's update ideology is commanded, is overstated most of the time compared to other risks people face online.
- IntelMiner 4y agoIt "works fine" insofar as you don't know if your machine is brimming with malware silently chugging away Which is what "good" malware does
- exodust 4y agoSo scan your PC for malware. If none are found and your machine is running fine, you don't need to panic about updates until you're good and ready to install updates. The problem with blind loyalty to Microsoft updates on their terms, is they can micro-tweak the compliance rules over time. One day you may find you can't use your own PC unless you sign in to Microsoft, upload photo ID, then enter the code they sent your phone. Don't worry, the data you provide Microsoft is shared only with trusted partners.
- IntelMiner 4y agoThe problem with that is you need to get update definitions from Microsoft Finding 2022 malware with 2015 Windows 10 definitions wont turn up much
- exodust 4y agoOnly if you use Microsoft as your antivirus. Otherwise what I said is still valid.
- 0daystock 4y agoSome would argue you've just described parts of the Windows OS itself, and updates exacerbate this.
- alar44 4y agoMy gosh, the ignorance of security on this site is just astounding sometimes. This is why IT and developers are in different departments, good grief.