Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th May 2017 16:18 UTC
Windows

Friday saw the largest global ransomware attack in internet history, and the world did not handle it well. We're only beginning to calculate the damage inflicted by the WannaCry program - in both dollars and lives lost from hospital downtime - but at the same time, we're also calculating blame.

There's a long list of parties responsible, including the criminals, the NSA, and the victims themselves - but the most controversial has been Microsoft itself. The attack exploited a Windows networking protocol to spread within networks, and while Microsoft released a patch nearly two months ago, it’s become painfully clear that patch didn’t reach all users. Microsoft was following the best practices for security and still left hundreds of thousands of computers vulnerable, with dire consequences. Was it good enough?

If you're still running Windows XP today and you do not pay for Microsoft's extended support, the blame for this whole thing rests solely on your shoulders - whether that be an individual still running a Windows XP production machine at home, the IT manager of a company cutting costs, or the Conservative British government purposefully underfunding the NHS with the end goal of having it collapse in on itself because they think the American healthcare model is something to aspire to.

You can pay Microsoft for support, upgrade to a secure version of Windows, or switch to a supported Linux distribution. If any one of those mean you have to fix, upgrade, or rewrite your internal software - well, deal with it, that's an investment you have to make that is part of running your business in a responsible, long-term manner. Let this attack be a lesson.

Nobody bats an eye at the idea of taking maintenance costs into account when you plan on buying a car. Tyres, oil, cleaning, scheduled check-ups, malfunctions - they're all accepted yearly expenses we all take into consideration when we visit the car dealer for either a new or a used car.

Computers are no different - they're not perfect magic boxes that never need any maintenance. Like cars, they must be cared for, maintained, upgraded, and fixed. Sometimes, such expenses are low - an oil change, new windscreen wiper rubbers. Sometimes, they are pretty expensive, such as a full tyre change and wheel alignment. And yes, after a number of years, it will be time to replace that car with a different one because the yearly maintenance costs are too high.

Computers are no different.

So no, Microsoft is not to blame for this attack. They patched this security issue two months ago, and had you been running Windows 7 (later versions were not affected) with automatic updates (as you damn well should) you would've been completely safe. Everyone else still on Windows XP without paying for extended support, or even worse, people who turn automatic updates off who was affected by this attack?

I shed no tears for you. It's your own fault.

Thread beginning with comment 644264
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

http://www.intel.com.au/content/www/au/en/support/processors/000006...
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-specifications

Please note the miss match between these sites. People have install windows 10 on older CPU than what Intel support and have been forced to disable update so their system runs. Of course it would have been helpful is Microsoft on their site had reported correct information and if Microsoft tools had blocked installing windows 10 in the first place on too old of hardware. So those users not updating have been trapped by Microsoft incompetence and possible Intel incompetence for not sharing correct information with Microsoft in time.


https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4012982/the-processor-is-no...

Here is Microsoft again choosing that with Windows 7 and 8.1 not to provide updates if person is using newer cpus.

There are other elephants in the room where people are failing to get updates.

So no, Microsoft is not to blame for this attack. They patched this security issue two months ago, and had you been running Windows 7 (later versions were not affected) with automatic updates (as you damn well should) you would've been completely safe.

This is also wrong.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2953132/windows/set-windows-10s-wi-f...
If you internet connection is set as metered in windows 10 even that Windows Update is enabled your computer might have downloaded no updates for a while because automatic updates only kicks in when you connect to a non metered. Yes if you are on metered manually performing updates is required.

After allowing for the Elephants a percent of effected users have be effected by miss information that auto updates on and they are done when with metered connections not they are not. Also a percent have been effected by Microsoft and Intel information miss match. A percent has been effected by Microsoft refuse to allow old OS on new hardware.

Also there is another percentage where automatic updates with windows 7 and 8 have resulted in breaking vendor provided parts.

So there are issues here. There are a percent I will give who are guilty of turning off automatic updates out of fear caused by seeing people they know suffer from the above issues. So yes a percentage of this problem lands cleanly at Microsoft feet.

Reply Score: 3

dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

"Here is Microsoft again choosing that with Windows 7 and 8.1 not to provide updates if person is using newer cpus."

Remember when Microsoft charged you every X years with a new Windows? Now it's a rolling release.

Also when You had your ancient Windows and danced with it along successive generations of junk? Demanding Microsoft to keep the damn thing alive and well? Well, now you can't.

[As soon as Continuum effort started, they could not keep the old scheme of asking more and more hardware stamina].

This scheme achieves an ETHICAL balance, by allowing old equipment to slip down the food chain, and taking care of the planet, by not forcing planed trash dumping. Or worst, Linux trans-personalization ;-)

Edited 2017-05-17 14:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2