Hanging on for dear life - Windows 7 won't let you shut it down

[Arika]

11 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

A program doesn't have to be subscription/could based to expire (actually, I should hav said reach EOL). once a program reaches EOL, it will not longer receive and security updates and, if a new security hole is discovered, you wil be out of luck. Also, if a new OS comes out, the older program may not run onnit and you will be forced to upgrade.

i doubt that, given how many people and industries use it, if there is a new OS, it will be updated to work with it.

 

12 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

You weren't paying attention. I said to install Linux on another machine, not the same machine you have Windows on.

 

What kind of issues did you have when you tried installing Linux on a laptop?

everything, network issues (to the point it would crash my router the moment I connected it via ethernet), software crashing, Repos that apparently fixed things that didn't, hardware acceleration h264 decoding refusing to work regardless of which VAAPI version i install. If i googled any kind of problem i was having, the answer would either be 

• massive number of repos to install and CLI commands to run that i had no idea what they were doing
• "elitists" berating people for being "stupid" because "it's such a basic thing that you should already know"
• outdated instructions
• instructions for a different distro then being told they should not be using the distro they are and to switch to their preferred one.

 

 

 

and here's where we have the crux of the issues and where you and i differ

21 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

frequent broken updates

Never had a broken update

 

21 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

forced updates that you can, at best, only delay,

never had an issue with updates interrupting anything i do.

 

24 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

constant changes that not infrequently results in software and hardware that will not longer work

never had an update break software or hardware.

 

25 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

data collection by MS (which you can only temporarily partially disable

the part i've accepted and mitigate as best i can.

 

25 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

underhanded tricks to try to force people to what MS wants, not what people want (such as downgrade Win 7 and Win 8.1 long before their EOL to Win 10)

Never needed to or wanted to downgrade to 7, 8 or 8.1.

 

27 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

gradually sneaking up on what will be a cloud and/or subscription based service in an Apple-like walled garden

speculation at best for the consumer version of windows

 

27 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

adding ads

I've never noticed ads (with the exception of the "pre-installed" things like candy crush, which is part of my W10 setup list to remove), which means they are non-intrusive..

 

 

 

Simply put, Linux is not for me.

[TomvanWijnen]

5 hours ago, Alan G said:

Not really.  I ended up with a corrupt OS drive three weeks ago.  All my data is on separate drives so I never lose anything.  I did a full Win10 reinstall including all the programs I normally use in less than 90 minutes.  All the program serial numbers are on a text document so I just have to copy and paste to activate.   It takes maybe 15 minutes, if that, to prepare a win10 ISO and Win 10 installs very quickly, much faster than any previous version of Windows in my experience.  Since I have all my program shortcuts on the desk top I never use the Win 10 start button.

Still, 90 minutes, add 15 minutes to that, and you're 15 minutes away from two hours. You're fortunate enough to have your data on separate drives. I have plenty of computers with just a single drive and years of data randomly scattered around on it. Add to that all programs that will have to be reinstalled. A random amount of drivers, some of which might not even exist due to pcs being "old". And outlook. I remember my dad and I having to spend forever (at least 5 hours) to get his emails to properly load in.

 

5 hours ago, Abdul201588 said:

What? Are you buringing a DVD? Max time to make a bootable USB 10-15 mins (depending your system)

That's true, but the rest of what you're quoting it the part that takes hours.

 

(unrelated) I also remember creating a bootable USB for it to not be recognised before Windows due to it apparently needing drivers or something. The worst thing is that I bought that drive specifically for installing Windows.

[BigDamn]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

They actually aren't for the most part, they keep saying "yes windows 7 is at a higher risk" which is exactly all I've said, they just seem to not like the fact and want to make it sound like it isn't a risk by making false equivalencies.  Please read the links I have posted before commenting further.  I am growing tired of people not understanding the problem.

You're misreading our comments as badly as you misread these articles you're sending. People arguing with you, including myself, are well aware that Windows 7 is a greater risk than Windows 10. We disagree with your original statement, which was that it's irresponsible to run Windows 7 as it's a threat to other users of the internet. You have zero understanding of OS security and for some god forsaken reason believe that botnet malaware somehow is deployed differently than other forms of malaware. You then post articles and claim they support your argument (or lack of), but let me quote the most recent article you sent:

 

"Dubbed Mylobot after a researcher's pet dog, the origins of the malware and its delivery method are currently unknown, but it appears to have a connection to Locky ransomware -- one of the most prolific forms of malware during last year."

 

"Delivery method unknown"

"Appears to have a connection to Locky" (distributed through email spam)

[Lady Fitzgerald]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

i doubt that, given how many people and industries use it, if there is a new OS, it will be updated to work with it...

I've had programs and hardware become unusable because their developers wouldn't upgrade their software (for an example, the makers of an expensive music engraving program wouldn't update the software I was using when Win 7 came out, forcing me to upgrade to an even more expensive version) or firmware to work on a new OS (HP is notorious for that, one reason I will never buy an HP product again). I've seen other complaints about this kind of thing from numerous sources.

 

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

i...everything, network issues (to the point it would crash my router the moment I connected it via ethernet), software crashing, Repos that apparently fixed things that didn't, hardware acceleration h264 decoding refusing to work regardless of which VAAPI version i install. If i googled any kind of problem i was having, the answer would either be 

• massive number of repos to install and CLI commands to run that i had no idea what they were doing
• "elitists" berating people for being "stupid" because "it's such a basic thing that you should already know"
• outdated instructions
• instructions for a different distro then being told they should not be using the distro they are and to switch to their preferred one...

You have to be doing something wrong, like trying to get Linux to work like Windows (that is sure fire way to fail), or you just didn't do your homework correctly. I never had those problems and I had no trouble getting help when I did have problems. Nor have I seen anyone else having those problems.

 

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

...and here's where we have the crux of the issues and where you and i differ

Never had a broken update

 

never had an issue with updates interrupting anything i do.

 

never had an update break software or hardware.

 

the part i've accepted and mitigate as best i can.

 

Never needed to or wanted to downgrade to 7, 8 or 8.1...

Well, I had many broken updates that broke Win 7 and I was forced to restore the OS to an earlier date to get the computer working again. And I've seen plenty of reports of people having interruptions in Win 10 due to updates, broken computers because of broken updates, etc. Just because you have been lucky doesn't mean everyone has.

 

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

...speculation at best for the consumer version of windows...

Speculation based on MS' actions for the past few years. In fact, the consumer version of Windows is the most likely to have it hapen first. If it happens (which I have no doubt it eventually will), it will probably be a gradual process over the several years happening so slowly, most people will not notice it happening until after it has happened. or they may just suddenly do it, much like Adobe did with their products. Keep in mind that MS' current CEO was formerly the head of MS' cloud development.

 

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

...I've never noticed ads (with the exception of the "pre-installed" things like candy crush, which is part of my W10 setup list to remove), which means they are non-intrusive...

 

That's how MS is sneaking them in. After people get used to them in the preinstalled programs, they will gradually add them to other programs and the OS.

[Chiyawa]

Oh my goodness, the OS becomes sentient! Everyone, run for your life!

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

No you haven't. It's just that you don't understand what the articles are saying.

None of the articles you have linked says what you think they say. A botnet is not something that spreads in a special way. A botnet is the result of payloads delivered through the same type of means as other malware.

Don't believe me when I say botnets are caused by regular malware which might as well be ransomware? Here are some statistics from spamhaus. In 2017 here were the most common bots and where they came from:

1) Downloader.Pony - A Trojan horse which spread through email.

2) IoT malware - Just a generic term for insecure IoT devices that gets infected, somehow.

3) Loki - Malware that was also spread through, you guessed it, email.

4) Chthonic - A Trojan which spread through spam messages.

5) Smoke Loader - Oh would you look at that, another malware that creates a botnet which was spread through spam emails.

 

So out of the 5 largest botnets of 2017, 4 of them were created through email spam. I could go on but I think you get the point. Botnets are created primarily through email spam, not some advanced drive-by download of a self executing exe, or self-spreading like a worm (other than sending itself as emails that is), or some other thing.

Botnets are primarily created by people downloading Trojans (like a pirated program) or from opening email attachments. That's it. There is nothing special about botnets which makes them spread in any particular way. A botnet is just the effect of a malware, which uses the same old fashion delivery methods as any other malware.

 

 

No what you have said is not true, yet. That "yet" is very important. It's the difference between a lie and the truth.

 

 

That will start being true tomorrow, but only very slightly true. As time goes on, that statement will be more and more accurate. It's a pretty small risk though.

Like I've said earlier, going from Windows 10 to a GNU/Linux distro provides FAR more protection than going from Windows 7 to Windows 10.

Let's say security can be graded from 1 to 10.

Right now, Windows 7 is a 4. I'll guess that by the end of the year it'll be a 3.

Windows 10 is a 5. It's slightly more secure but not that much.

Your run of the mill GNU/Linux distro like Ubuntu is an 7.

 

 

I don't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate?

 

 

 

 

But that's not true. Windows 7 without support isn't a higher risk. Windows 7 with unpatched and known vulnerabilities is a higher risk.

Those vulnerabilities will start coming in now than it isn't receiving updates anymore, but until those actually start showing up (which they haven't) the risk is no greater than it was before.

I know you think we are saying the same thing and that I'm just "arguing for the sake of it", but it is a VERY important difference. Software does not become a risk because a lack of support. It becomes a risk because of functional exploits.

 

 

 

Here it is on black and white from the link I posted earlier:

 

Quote

More complex botnets can even self-propagate, finding and infecting devices automatically. Such autonomous bots carry out seek-and-infect missions, constantly searching the web for vulnerable internet-connected devices lacking operating system updates or antivirus software.

 

I am sorry you don't believe this is true and I know you want me to be wrong, but I am afraid that's not the case.  The article also explains what a bot is and trying to perplex the issue with unnecessary definitions doesn't change anything I have said.

 

2 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Because that is all you talk about.

Because everyone keeps trying t o say it is wrong when It isn't,  even you agreed that windows seven without updates becomes a higher risk.  Ergo if you keep telling me something else and the others keep trying to pretend bots aren't bots etc then of course I am going to keep reiterating what I am saying.

2 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

So give us some examples of widespread infections in XP that were diredtly due to people using it after EOL.

 

https://www.itnews.com.au/news/how-the-qbot-malware-downed-melbourne-healths-systems-414041

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2019/06/10/the-goldbrute-botnet-is-trying-to-crack-open-1-5-million-rdp-servers/

 

 

Honestly it isn't hard to google and I am having trouble you guys are so naive about bots.

2 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

We aren't continuously referring to them as they are the only danger nor are we saying there is no protection from them (there are ways to avoid them). You are making a mountain out of a molehill (granted, it's a large molehill but nowhere remotely near the size of the mountain you are making it out to be).

huh?  All I said was don;t use win 7 if you can upgrade because the increase risk is not worth it.  Especially when it causes grief for others.   I may as well have said Linux is for children the way you are all reacting.

 

2 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Most of us here do know what a bot net is. Most of us also know how to detect one (there are many ways, btw, such as increased internet usage and using anti-malware programs) and how to get out of one (again, most anti-malware programs can deal with them just fine; push come to shove, one can wipe a drive and reinstall and, for the really tricky ones, reflash the BIOS although that is rarely necessary). Even if they are lying dormant for a few weeks, they still can be detected.

 

It appears many don't, and much to my surprise.

2 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Also, your ZDNet article is almost two years old. Most AVs and/or other anti-malware programs learned how to deal with that bot pretty quickly.

 

No shit, I said it was an example from 2018,  don't you read?

Look again:

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Bots can self propagate and usually are designed to lay dormant for a time so they don't trigger anything that will give a way their existence.  If  you don't know they are there or can't detect them then the exploit they used to get there isn't patched.  There have been several windows bots discovered over the years, some of them very well designed.  There was one discovered in 2018 that self propagated, laid dormant for 14 days to avoid detection.

 

https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-new-windows-malware-wants-to-add-your-pc-to-a-botnet-or-worse/

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, BigDamn said:

You're misreading our comments as badly as you misread these articles you're sending. People arguing with you, including myself, are well aware that Windows 7 is a greater risk than Windows 10. We disagree with your original statement, which was that it's irresponsible to run Windows 7 as it's a threat to other users of the internet. You have zero understanding of OS security and for some god forsaken reason believe that botnet malaware somehow is deployed differently than other forms of malaware. You then post articles and claim they support your argument (or lack of), but let me quote the most recent article you sent:

 

"Dubbed Mylobot after a researcher's pet dog, the origins of the malware and its delivery method are currently unknown, but it appears to have a connection to Locky ransomware -- one of the most prolific forms of malware during last year."

 

"Delivery method unknown"

"Appears to have a connection to Locky" (distributed through email spam)

Please read them again, I am getting tired of this.

 

They explicitly point out they can be self propagating and many have been discovered to do so.  I know you don't want to believe it, but if you think modern malware always needs you to install something or click on a link you are sadly mistaken.

[Arika]

33 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

You have to be doing something wrong, like trying to get Linux to work like Windows (that is sure fire way to fail), or you just didn't do your homework correctly.

2 hours ago, Arika S said:

"elitists" berating people for being "stupid" because "it's such a basic thing that you should already know"

i'm literally doing what other linux users have told other people to do.

 

31 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Just because you have been lucky doesn't mean everyone has.

just because you have been unlucky doesn't mean everyone has. it's a matter of the vocal minority. 

 

i'm also not saying these problems don't exist or that you didn't experience these issues. they don't exist for me and therefore are not an issue for me and therefore not a reason for me to ditch windows.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I never had those problems and I had no trouble getting help when I did have problems

Does this mean that I didn't have these problems because you didn't? no. You had issues with Windows that i don't. i had issues with Linux that you don't

 

35 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Speculation based on MS' actions for the past few years. In fact, the consumer version of Windows is the most likely to have it hapen first.

still speculation.

 

35 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

That's how MS is sneaking them in. After people get used to them in the preinstalled programs, they will gradually add them to other programs and the OS.

if they are as unobtrusive as they are for me now, then i don't care.

 

 

Linux is not for me, i'll be sticking with Windows.

[BigDamn]

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Please read them again, I am getting tired of this.

 

They explicitly point out they can be self propagating and many have been discovered to do so.  I know you don't want to believe it, but if you think modern malware always needs you to install something or click on a link you are sadly mistaken.

I quoted your own article for you, as we've all pointed out you simply have comprehension issues. You also seem to believe that users should depend solely on Windows security features to keep them safe but this couldn't be further from the truth. Simple AV software such as Kaspersky and BitDefender can fight off connections to risky sources and be beneficial in keeping you safe.

 

Now lets clear something up. These "self propagating viruses" (a conflicting statement) and "botnets" you speak of are what we call 'worms'. These worms are self propagating, but not the way you think they do. Worms can exist inside of a network and spread to devices on that network, which can then be taken elsewhere and spread further, but they aren't latching on to people's random home PC's. Just look at how WannaCry exploded, for example. This is why running Windows 7 is a greater risk, but still not a threat. If you're using it on insecure networks than you'll have a problem, but a secure home network? Again, that just comes down to being smart.

 

You have to remember that Microsoft is often REACTIVE to these issues, so the next major malware outbreak will likely be as vulnerable on Windows 10 as it will be on 7, the difference is Microsoft will patch 10. This is why your thought process is dangerous. Everyone using Windows 10 should be as vigilant as those currently on 7.

 

Fyi, if all you're going to do is tell me to read your links than don't bother responding. I've read your links and they prove nothing, as others have mentioned. If you have educated input to provide than please do.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, BigDamn said:

I quoted your own article for you, as we've all pointed out you simply have comprehension issues. You also seem to believe that users should depend solely on Windows security features to keep them safe but this couldn't be further from the truth.

 

Please quote where I said that. Now you making shit up.  All I said was now that win 7 is not supported it becomes a higher risk for things like bots. I have linked to sufficient evidence to that end,  keep arguing with yourself. 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

...https://www.itnews.com.au/news/how-the-qbot-malware-downed-melbourne-healths-systems-414041...

 

One instance of a hospital system using XP to years after getting caught by a bot. Big deal. What about the millions of other cpmputers still using XP who didn't get caught? That was also a poorly written article. It didn't say if the hospital system was using unprotected XP, had their own AV and anti-malware provisions in place, or if they had been paying MS for continued support.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

...https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2019/06/10/the-goldbrute-botnet-is-trying-to-crack-open-1-5-million-rdp-servers/...

That one is from only a few months ago, long after most XP users had moved on, and has nothing to do with most computers. It involves remote desktop servers and was not very widespread compared to the total number of users it could have affected.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

...I am getting tired of this...

So are we.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

One instance of a hospital system using XP to years after getting caught by a bot. Big deal. What about the millions of other cpmputers still using XP who didn't get caught? That was also a poorly written article. It didn't say if the hospital system was using unprotected XP, had their own AV and anti-malware provisions in place, or if they had been paying MS for continued support.

 

That one is from only a few months ago, long after most XP users had moved on, and has nothing to do with most computers. It involves remote desktop servers and was not very widespread compared to the total number of users it could have affected.

 

And? you said there were none for XP,  I showed you there were,  all this really proves is that they exist and that running an outdated systems cones with risks,  this is a fairly universal truth held by almost the entire industry.  So I am not sure why  you and the others have trouble accepting that.

8 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

So are we.

Then stop trying to make a known risk sound like it isn't a risk.

[jagdtigger]

5 hours ago, Arika S said:

i'm literally doing what other linux users have told other people to do.

Try Pop!_os, it was made mostly for laptops, it also supports hybrid mode for laptops with 2 GPU.

[TechyBen]

6 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

One instance of a hospital system using XP to years after getting caught by a bot. Big deal. What about the millions of other cpmputers still using XP who didn't get caught? That was also a poorly written article. It didn't say if the hospital system was using unprotected XP, had their own AV and anti-malware provisions in place, or if they had been paying MS for continued support.

 

That one is from only a few months ago, long after most XP users had moved on, and has nothing to do with most computers. It involves remote desktop servers and was not very widespread compared to the total number of users it could have affected.

 

So are we.

Also, I agree it was due to using XP. But also due to SMB:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/30/15712542/windows-xp-wannacry-protect-ransomware-blue-screen

 

Patching/changing/disabling SMB can be done, even now on XP. So without MS updates and support, XP can be made safe from Wannacry and a "botnet" (I see some of the confusion is from, at least me, assuming a botnet was a cryptocoin miner in general, when it's just a collection of hacked pcs from one source of hack). *Without MS updates* you can secure an OS, even one that is EOL. You could probably make it more secure than default Windows 10... Which would show Moose to be partially right and partially wrong. IF a user locks down Windows 10 (or a current Linux distro) they would have the most secure OS, but IF they lock down an old OS, it would be more secure than an average install!!!

 

So that's the problem. Stating "on average", when we here, in the forum, are specific people, who are not this magical "everyday scottsman" Moose thinks we are.  I think a lot of arguments on this forum would be avoided if people understood this, and use comments more like "those who don't" or "those who do" instead of "everyone is" or "you are"... right?

 

I don't totally disagree with the arguments on either side. I agree with it being said, All OSs are at risk, some more than others. I don't see 7 as that much more risky right now. If I did, I'd temporarily go to Win 8.1. LOL. XD

 

So I have plans to roll with a Linux/Win 10 dual boot, and hope to learn how to put 7 in a VM.

 

I Really need to make my second project PC and get this one tidied up all sweat.

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

I am sorry you don't believe this is true and I know you want me to be wrong, but I am afraid that's not the case.  The article also explains what a bot is and trying to perplex the issue with unnecessary definitions doesn't change anything I have said.

Well the problem is that you are making very broad and bold claims which are not true, and then you link to a "explain like I'm 5" article and go "see this says something vaguely similar to what I said so therefore I am right!".

That article you linked doesn't back up any of the claims you have made such as Windows 7 being a greater risk yesterday. All it says is that some botnets are capable of self-replicating, some of which use vulnerable operating systems as attack vectors. Wanna know what else is a big attack vector of self replicating malware that expand botnets? Email! Like I said, 4 out of the 5 largest botnets in 2017 were spread through email. They are also self-replicating, and they might also use vulnerabilities in operating systems to spread.

 

"It uses security holes in the OS" does not mean it has to work like WannaCry. I think you see certain words and then start jumping to wrong conclusions because you are not that well educated in the subject.

But even if you were right in your assumptions your overall points, such as how people need to move away from Windows 7 to Windows 10 because it is a security risk are fundamentally flawed, because Windows 10 can also be considered a security risk if we're really serious about security.

 

Again, you seem to think that where you are on the "security spectrum" is the absolute sweet spot and nobody should be below you, but anyone who is above you in terms of security are probably just paranoid. The problem is that people who are on Windows 7 are thinking EXACTLY the same way. You're just on the other side of the same coin.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Well the problem is that you are making very broad and bold claims which are not true,

I didn't realize saying an unsupported OS is a higher security risk was "bold" and "broad" and "untrue"  The more you know...

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

I didn't realize saying an unsupported OS is a higher security risk was "bold" and "broad" and "untrue"  The more you know...

Several days ago you said that Windows 7 PCs were now a higher risk of bot infection. This was unproven at best, and false at worse.

Here is the quote:

On 2/9/2020 at 8:25 AM, mr moose said:

I don't care about their own good, but if their systems become repositories for bots further messing up the internet for the rest of us then I care. And yes, windows 7 pc's will now be at a higher risk of bot infection due to the fact it is no longer maintained at a domestic level. 

 

 

You made a claim that running an outdated OS increases the risk of becoming part of a botnet here:

On 2/9/2020 at 8:57 PM, mr moose said:

So I'll say it again, because not only is it true, but its inexcusable if you know better:   running an outdated OS increases the risk of becoming part of bot nets.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "outdated". Just because it isn't getting updates anymore doesn't mean there is an increased risk of being infected with malware. Lack of updates doesn't cause harm. Publicly known, unpatched security holes does. Those are two different things and until Windows 7 actually has some serious issues (which will happen) you're mostly just being an alarmist.

It's OK to tell people that they should not use vulnerable software, but it's not okay to exaggerate the risks or present future threats as threats today.

 

But even if Windows 7 was vulnerable today, just saying "it increases the risk of becoming part of a botnet" is such a weak argument. It's a really weak and shitty argument because it applies to basically everything. Like I have said and shown, most botnets are spread though email, so using email is also a risk (a MUCH bigger one than running Windows 7 I might add). It's like telling people to stop eating bananas because they cause cancer. Well, technically everything can cause cancer, so why single out bananas? And if you are really worried about cancer then then the focus should be to get people to exercise and eat a varied and healthy diet. But when I suggest that (or rather, suggest GNU/Linux because it is far less likely to become part of a botnet) then you start talking about how that will never work.

If you actually cared about stopping people from becoming parts of botnets, then you would suggest people move away from Windows completely, but you don't. Why is that?

 

 

 

Here you were wrong by saying a botnet isn't like a normal malware or virus. They absolutely are.

On 2/11/2020 at 11:47 AM, mr moose said:

You really need to learn what a botnet is and how it spreads. it is not like normal malware or viruses.  If you don't believe experts then You aren't going to believe me.

 

an example:

https://www.cnet.com/news/beware-windows-7-users-malware-campaign-targeting-iot-devices/

Botnets are created by "normal" malware and viruses. In fact the most common botnets were created by Trojan horses, which is a normal type of malware.

Botnets are nothing special. They are created by plain old malware.

 

 

 

 

Here you said that Windows 7 was a higher risk which was wrong because Windows 7 still hadn't missed any updates it would have received if it was still supported.

I also can't find any unpatched vulnerabilities in Windows 7 when I look at for example the CVE database. They will start appearing sooner or later, but they haven't yet. So saying that it is "now" more vulnerable is wrong. Your statements are the opposite of facts. They are incorrect. You will be right someday, but not at this point in time.

On 2/11/2020 at 11:53 AM, mr moose said:

Windows 7 is now a higher risk of becoming infected with a BOT, this is not an opinion it is a FACT.  I am sorry that FACT is so horrendous to you you wish to play dodge ball with words, but this FACT is not going to change. 

 

 

 

On 2/11/2020 at 11:53 AM, mr moose said:

I alleviate risk by doing what I can, that means not running an unsupported OS and updating everything I have. it means not playing Russian roulette with emails and files on the internet.    But the most important thing I said is "doing what I can", and that means moving on from win 7.   Whether you like it or not, the fact is that people who remain on windows 7 are choosing to increase the risk.   

In the above quote you're also wrong. You haven't alleviated the risks you can. You're still using Windows 10, which is in and of itself a risk. Do you not see how hypocritical you are here? You blame people on WIndows 7 because they are choosing to increase the risk of spreading botnets, but you're perfectly fine with you not taking additional steps such as replacing Windows 10 with GNU/Linux. You expect others to move to a more secure OS, but you refuse to do so yourself.

[LAwLz]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

https://www.itnews.com.au/news/how-the-qbot-malware-downed-melbourne-healths-systems-414041

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2019/06/10/the-goldbrute-botnet-is-trying-to-crack-open-1-5-million-rdp-servers/

Not to poke the bee-hive or anything but that Melbourne hospital attack was done via a zero-day exploit. Even if XP still was being updated the attack would still have occurred.

Zero day attacks are just as likely to happen on an up-to-date system as it is on a system which hasn't been updated for year.

 

The article from nakedsecurity is a far better example because that's an instance where applying updates actually helps.

 

 

 

Look, I don't feel like repeating the same things over and over to you like we always end up doing.

I think we are having this conversation because you are pushing people to have up to date software, which is an admirable goal. But the way you're doing it is not the right way. I don't know if you're doing it on purpose or not, but a lot of the things you say regarding security are incorrect. You got the right idea (for example that installing security updates are important), but when trying to justify why you fall flat on your face by making shit up, overstating dangers, misinterpreting what things are (like how you have an incorrect idea of what a botnet is).

 

Just say it as it is. Using Windows 7 today is not a big issue, because it isn't. It will probably not be a big issue all throughout the entire year. But without security updates there will be more and more security issues (keyword is "will be", future tense). These security issues can be mitigated through other means most of the time. Not having ports exposed to the Internet, using a good anti-virus software, not going to shady websites, not opening spam email... Those things basically protects you from 99% of all malware (which includes becoming part of a botnet).

 

 

Like I said earlier, let's imagine that security is a scale from 1 to 10. Where XP is 1 and FreeBSD (or maybe Qubes) is a 10. Here is how I'd rank some operating systems.

Windows 7 - 4, will probably be a 3 by the end of the year.

Windows 10 - 5

Ubuntu - 7

 

Do you understand why I think it's hypocritical for a Windows 10 users to be shouting at others about how "insecure" their OS is? Because you yourself have barely made any effort to make yourself more secure and resilient.

But how come you haven't made your computer more resilient against attacks by for example installing Ubuntu? Is it because you think it's complicated, or have compatibility issues, or don't want to leave the familiarity of the Windows you're currently using? Maybe you think you are already "secure enough" because you don't have any issues with the OS you're currently using. Well all of those are all the same arguments some people use to justify staying on Windows 7.

You're just the other side of the same coin, people who don't want to change for some reason even though the change brings with it more security, which makes you look hypocritical.

[Donut417]

On 2/10/2020 at 5:25 AM, Beerzerker said:

If it ever happens here and I can't fix it, that's what Linux is for.

Not everything supports Linux. I learned that recently when trying to watch Criminal Minds on CBS.com, the DRM they use don’t work with Linux. It probably never will. Doesn’t matter what browser and DRM has been enabled in the browser. Seems this started in early January. So I guess that Laptop I was going to buy is most likely going to be a MacBook Pro. Because I won’t touch Windows and MacOS has a bit better support. 
 

Don’t get me wrong Ubuntu is great and I’ll continue using it on my desktop. But I can at least buy a machine that the powers that be will support for those little things I need to do. 

[LogicalDrm]

*** Thread locked ***

 

The discussion here seems to have moved to two major lines, Windows vs Linux (which is pointless and against CS) and security of OS/device without updates. Neither of these are about the subject of this thread so I don't see point of keeping things going.