Well, in the 10+ years i have been building / using PC's i have not had a problem yet! I must be lucky i suppose! The first thing i do when i install XP is to disable updates. Never had an issue.Originally Posted by Gordy
Well, in the 10+ years i have been building / using PC's i have not had a problem yet! I must be lucky i suppose! The first thing i do when i install XP is to disable updates. Never had an issue.Originally Posted by Gordy
if you go on the internet with ideas like that then your only going to become a member of a botnet.Originally Posted by Koolpc
Patching is VERY important, they bring out patches for a reason, often they aren't needed enless your doing something obscure, but sometimes, they're major security issues.
like the recent "uh oh" with MAC OSX and secure handling of quick time files.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
All i am saying is that i have never used a Microsoft update! Never had a problem. On the net most days for quite a few hours (My job). I only go to certain sites and i am careful in what i download etc. Now, if i had experienced any problems in the 10+ years i would then be in the wrong but seeing as i haven't then i don't see a need for 'me' to use the microsoft update facility.Originally Posted by TheAnimus
If anyone wants to use the update facility then that is up to them. I build / repair PC's and know the ins and outs of them / internet. For my customers i leave the updates from Microsoft 'active' as they are not PC literate.
Last edited by Koolpc; 24-05-2006 at 09:11 PM.
All i am saying is no, no you don't. And your case in point for making people require a license to use the net.Originally Posted by Koolpc
Blaster is a worm that must be one of the most widespread of all time... why? a exploit in RPC.
if you never update SSHd your not going to be running that box much longer....
Some patches might be a "fixes a problem when program x and y are installed together", but there are some which fix fatal flaws.
hang on a second, if you've never updated, how can u be using a large sized HDD!?!
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Never had a problem with the Blaster Worm etc etc. To say i am not going to be running my PC much longer is rubbish. My PC is protected as much as it needs to be. All i am saying is that i have never ever used the Micosoft Update facility. Don't slag me off for that. I am not saying others shouldn't use it either, just that i don't.Originally Posted by TheAnimus
I know of others who do the same as me and they have no issues. If you go to dodgy websites and open dodgy emails and download dodgy programs / files then what you get is what you deserve. No Microsoft update is going to save you from them.
So, lets stop talking about me now and let the thread starter get some answers he needs. Wish i hadn't metioned it now!
not really because your advice needs to be thoroughly discredited!
so your saying that the problem is the updating programs, not the updates?
you've patched against RPC exploits how? Its not a case of downloading files from a dodgy site. Your machine will be compramised remotely even. If you don't patch say a browser you can have problems.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Look, i am not arguing about this anymore. You do what you do and i'll do what i do. IF it works for you then good. I don't have any problems.
I am not saying people should not use the facility. I think they should. Just that i don't.
I am still here aren't i? My PC has not been infected, ever! Explain that to me? Luck? I run a tight ship with enough protection and experience to make sure my PC stays working.
Anyway, i am not replying anymore to this as it is going off thread. Sorry to the thread starter for this going on and on. It ends here as far as i am concerned. I made my point and that is that.
If it cant get in, it certainly cant do much... patches arent be all end all.Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Running XP without any servicepacks at all? I suppose that's flying by the seat of your pants...Originally Posted by Koolpc
http://www.avantgarde.com/ttln113004.html
Being secure is not just about not visiting dodgy websites or bad emails, if your computer is on the web its at risk, whether you choose to believe it or not.
yes but if your not allowing to understand that your software could be flawed the only way to stop things getting in is to not use it, or have any wireless/wired links on it.Originally Posted by javalord
What happens if your web browser has a bug in how it proccessess images, forum signatures on a "legit" site like this could be used.
What happens if you get a malicously crafted email which dupes your mail client into performing a buffer overflow.
A software firewall isn't security any more than a stab vest is a night club bouncer.
To even begin to advocate not patching anything is silly. Now patches considered "critical" generally always need to be applied.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
I still think your blowing this out of proportion. Yes that could happen but likelyhood is low and it wouldnt be able to go anywhere really as I use proxies. Despite my lazy tendancies and god knows how many enemies, my network design and proxy server (via another proxy server) has served me well, and yet to be penetrated.Originally Posted by TheAnimus
I can be lazy due to the way I've designed this little nest. Oh and in 'real' corporate networks ive seen, there's a lot of trapping in each VLAN with IDS sniffing the main interface and broadcasts. Besides, I've seen MS patches take down enough systems to know that I better test them beforehand! KoolPC is somewhat right - cant purely rely on windows update, but not to take an alternative provision in the first place for patching is pretty poor by all means. More importantly, end users + strict policies are the better of the 2, even if joe sixpack cant MSN whilst at work.
Last edited by javalord; 24-05-2006 at 10:58 PM.
really, all you need is a hardware firewall and a good antivirus like avast and you should be safe without updating.....
untill your mates brings his Pc over for a LAN party...your firewall will be about as much use as a chocolate teapotOriginally Posted by UltraMagnus
I've said it before and I'll say it again , and again and again.
The *only* way to approach IT security and safe keeping of your systems is to adopt a layered approach. The only difference between an enterprise and a home system is in the number of layers.
Its everything from keeping an eye on who is connecting to your network , to keeping software up to date to using an antivirus product , to using a permiter firewall and potentially an application level firewall. That way you are covered for events at every level of the system.
I've seen the after effects of a system where someone thought that their perimeter firewalls would cover them and its not pretty. It caused far more work than the 20 minutes it would have taken to test and rollout a patch.
No single layer is designed to be infallable , but the combination of them should lead to a secure and stable environment.
my Virtualisation Blog http://jfvi.co.uk Virtualisation Podcast http://vsoup.net
the time-to-infection for an unprotected windows box these days is under 20 minutes - that is, connect an SP0 box to the net, go have dinner, come back, and it's infected.
now... if you have a firewall running, then you're protected from this happening. fair enough. but can you guarantee that your firewall will always be running before you're online? before you've got drivers? before the firewall is even installed?
how about the firewall itself - it's software, and therefore prone to abuse by vulnerabilities. do you leave your firewall unpatched? how about vulnerabilites that sneak in - TheAnimus gave a prime example, a major advertisement server was compromised fairly recently, so any outdated-MSIE users visiting "legit" websites using those adverts were infected (including big-name sites like The Register and MSN). how do you avoid THOSE, precisely? or the other little things pointed out by someone else - you plan on ever using hard disks over 137GB? because you can't without at least xpsp1/2ksp3.
i completely fail to understand how anyone can advocate a "no not update" policy, for practically zero risk, and quantifiable gain.
i run linux on my systems, including those i administer at work. i'd be told to pack up my belongings if i tried to institute a "updates are for weenies" approach. this isn't about "trust", this isn't about "microsoft", it's about basic computing, and not being an arse.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)