4 ms·

Vulnerability patches -- while fixing some vulnerabilities -- can be the source of future vulnerabilities... One might ask themselves why constant "security" p

Vulnerability patches -- while fixing some vulnerabilities -- can be the source of future vulnerabilities... One might ask themselves why constant "security" patches are needed... Did the security patchers not fix all of the security vulnerabilities in the OS they are patching with a single patch? Self-evident truth: If an OS ever has more than one security patch -- then the second (or Nth) security patch is a self-evident proof/truth -- that the OS vendor did not fix all OS security vulnerabilities in the first (or (N-1)th patch. Self-evident truth! But that's no fair you say! You're going to say something like: "Oh no, OS vendors didn't know about the security vulnerabilities until after they were discovered later in time, that's why they needed to deploy multiple patches later in time, and that's why there's many of them!" And that may be true... But it is also equal-and-oppositely the self-evident proof/truth that what was assumed to be secure at one point in time -- turned out not to be so secure, in hindsight, at a future point in time! Point is: The fact that there are security updates, multiple ones of them -- is a self-evident proof/truth that the viewpoint that a given OS is secure at one point in time (directly after the latest patch) and was not secure prior to that patch -- means that at the point in time that the prior to the latest patch was deployed, that is, directly after the N-1 patch was deployed (where N is the latest patch), it was thought that the system was "secure"... until the latest patch was then required... and then that point in time (as all of the other post-patch times in the history of the chain of patches) -- would have been shown as myopic (flawed) thinking -- about the matter... Conclusion: By virtue of the self-evident proof / perceptual contradiction pre and post patches I have laid out above, newer OS'es are not secure. The simpler (and the older) the OS -- the greater the chance it has of being actually secure... I am not wrong. Your conclusions about the security of a given OS pre and post patch at every point in the patch chain. Post previous patch, but before the next patch comes out: "Now it's secure!" New patch comes out, but before applying it: "Oops, I guess it wasn't secure after all -- let's apply this patch!" Post applying the latest patch: "Now it's secure!" Then the cycle repeats again and again, ad infinitum, ad naseaum... Self-contradiction.

josephcsible 3y ago
There are two flaws in your logic: 1. Security is not a binary. One system can be more secure than another even if it's not totally secure. 2. It's impossible in practice for any nontrivial system to be completely free of all vulnerabilities. When people talk about systems being secure, they generally mean free of known vulnerabilities.
npteljes 3y ago
While theoretically true, we live in practicality. Out of support means that when a vulnerability is discovered, it's not going to get patched, so people for example write automated means to detect and exploit them, joining the computer to a botnet. And nobody ever is going to do anything against this at the source of the problem: the vulnerability. If you're interested in actual conspiracy, then I think that there is a bigger story. Many of the vulnerabilities of the current systems are actually already known (and exploited), just not by the creators of the systems. These exploits are either collected by state agents, or private entities that sell them as services to state agents - as they are basically munition, and so, of highest interest for people in power. Getting back to the original point, I don't think any software is ever secure. You take the risk the first time you fire it up. But the difference between using a recent iPhone, and an old PC with Windows 7 is that in the first case, you open yourself up to the NSO group, and in the second, that you open yourself up to hundred thousands of script kiddies and botnet recruiters out there. That is why it's recommended to use an up to date anything - or, if one likes to stay safe, not use any such thing at all.

josephcsible 3y ago

There are two flaws in your logic: 1. Security is not a binary. One system can be more secure than another even if it's not totally secure. 2. It's impossible in practice for any nontrivial system to be completely free of all vulnerabilities. When people talk about systems being secure, they generally mean free of known vulnerabilities.

npteljes 3y ago

While theoretically true, we live in practicality. Out of support means that when a vulnerability is discovered, it's not going to get patched, so people for example write automated means to detect and exploit them, joining the computer to a botnet. And nobody ever is going to do anything against this at the source of the problem: the vulnerability. If you're interested in actual conspiracy, then I think that there is a bigger story. Many of the vulnerabilities of the current systems are actually already known (and exploited), just not by the creators of the systems. These exploits are either collected by state agents, or private entities that sell them as services to state agents - as they are basically munition, and so, of highest interest for people in power. Getting back to the original point, I don't think any software is ever secure. You take the risk the first time you fire it up. But the difference between using a recent iPhone, and an old PC with Windows 7 is that in the first case, you open yourself up to the NSO group, and in the second, that you open yourself up to hundred thousands of script kiddies and botnet recruiters out there. That is why it's recommended to use an up to date anything - or, if one likes to stay safe, not use any such thing at all.