The past few years, it seemed as if virus writers had moved away from doing actual damage to systems to instead focus on stealth, so that infected machines can silently, and unknowingly, be used for all sorts of malicious practices. Sadly, there are still those crackers out there that prefer the old-fashioned approach to these matters. The result: 100000 ruined Windows machines.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
If you took the time to notice there is a trailing dots afterwards to indicate the simple problem: the end user moves operating systems and they can't run the software they like from the vendors they trust (aka, I want PrintShop Pro but the company doesn't make a version to run on the operating system I'd like to run), the hardware - even when the operating system is bundled with the hardware isn't fully supported (HP claiming SLED supports their laptop but the reality is that it is mired in problems).
With that being said, however, you are right - the weakest link is the end user; the patch that stops the conflicker worm from being spread was released October 28, 2008 last year and yet we have people here bending over backwards to justify the laziness of end users.
To those who blame the operating system company after they release an update months before the worm/exploit hits the web: Is it the fault of the oven company when someone puts on a dinner, walks away, and then the food gets burnt? is it the fault of the microwave company when the microwave blows up because someone puts a metal dish in it?
Edited 2009-05-09 06:39 UTC
Member since:2005-07-12
Member since:2006-01-28
Yeah, except for the fact that Microsoft patches are notorious for breaking stuff in all kinds of ways.
Suddenly, a piece of software that you have been running for years and on which an entire company depends, no longer works. Suddenly, a patch to w2k3 server makes it very hard for winxp clients to connect to a windows domain the first time, throwing an rpc error, unless you know the specifc steps to work around it.
So, give it a break. Lots of people cannot afford to upgrade the instant that patches are released becasue all too often shit breaks.
And dont tell me to get a backup server to test patches on, becasue there are too many servers each with its specific function and purpose and it simply isn't financially feasible to have two of everything.
We have progressively moved to linux on most of our servers and have had zero issues with patches in five years.
Member since:2007-09-06
The security by design of other platforms combined with the larger developer base and rate of bug patching... I'd be very interested to see the outcome if/when other platforms become targeted more directly.
Apple faithful will benefit from that company being forced to focus on security more. The more libre platforms already enjoy attention to security with the exception of a few distributions that break it intentionally.
Member since:
2005-08-26
Yes, I'm sure the majority of people who this affected care about alternatives enough to want to bother trying to use them. This has less to do with Windows and more to do with the person operating it. But that's alright, even though alternative operating systems don't cure ignorance feel perfectly welcome to keep inviting them over to your platform so the cross-hairs of the mal-ware developers and bad press will shift somewhere else for a change.