XP_ user

[gandalf12]

Win XP is not supported any longer by Microsoft but let me ask you a question. How many times have you required support from Microsoft for Win XP? My guess is never. If I am right why upgrade at all? Win XP is stable and you can still get the patches that were issued before they stopped supporting the system.

Sure, I expect most people have never asked MS for support for XP, Win 7, Win 10, etc.,...that is, talking to MS on the phone, chatting with them online, letting them take control of your computer to fix an issue, etc. And that is because Windows is basically a stable OS.

But the critical support MS provides to "everyone" using Windows is updates/patches....those things that can download automatically to keep the OS running smooth and eliminate security problems. Those updates/patches you see coming out approx "every two weeks or so" (well, not for XP anymore)...or even more often if a critical update is pushed out immediately to fix a serious security problem just found.

MS ended updates/patches for XP in Apr 14, over two years ago which means not one update/patch has occurred since then...updates/patches that use to occur approx every two weeks. Basically when using XP you are using an OS that hasn't been updated for two years. Sure it may run stable...but just because a system appears to run stable does not mean it's safe from malware and other problems.

Maybe consider the updates like replacing the lock on the door because the bad guys found a way to get around your old lock...found out the combination of your old lock.

I haven't updated since 2010-2011 ,that's nearly 6 years with no problems. Never needed the redmond softies for support. What do you guys do with your computer to attract malware ?

Just minor ransomware when I was in europe never here in Thailand.

XP is certainly not unsafer than the newer versions and it wil only get better with less and less people using it.

They visit dubious sites and click on links that no one in their right mind would click on.

[gandalf12]

Win XP is not supported any longer by Microsoft but let me ask you a question. How many times have you required support from Microsoft for Win XP? My guess is never. If I am right why upgrade at all? Win XP is stable and you can still get the patches that were issued before they stopped supporting the system.

Sure, I expect most people have never asked MS for support for XP, Win 7, Win 10, etc.,...that is, talking to MS on the phone, chatting with them online, letting them take control of your computer to fix an issue, etc. And that is because Windows is basically a stable OS.

But the critical support MS provides to "everyone" using Windows is updates/patches....those things that can download automatically to keep the OS running smooth and eliminate security problems. Those updates/patches you see coming out approx "every two weeks or so" (well, not for XP anymore)...or even more often if a critical update is pushed out immediately to fix a serious security problem just found.

MS ended updates/patches for XP in Apr 14, over two years ago which means not one update/patch has occurred since then...updates/patches that use to occur approx every two weeks. Basically when using XP you are using an OS that hasn't been updated for two years. Sure it may run stable...but just because a system appears to run stable does not mean it's safe from malware and other problems.

Maybe consider the updates like replacing the lock on the door because the bad guys found a way to get around your old lock...found out the combination of your old lock.

There is also no real value to hackers which removes most of the risk. Apple until recently never had attacks but that wasn't because their system was so good but because a hacker would not make a name for them self if they hacked a system only a very small number of people use. Hackers go for the high usage platforms. Anyone who hacked Windows when it first came out was considered a hero in the hacking community but hacking Linux gave them no credit. This is what you are missing in it all.

[Pib]

XP is certainly not unsafer than the newer versions and it will only get better with less and less people using it.

Can you please explain how XP will only get better with less and less people using it?

[Pib]

[Chicog]

XP is certainly not unsafer than the newer versions and it wil only get better with less and less people using it.

Oh please stop spouting such rubbish.

The only way that will ever happen is if M$ give it to the open source community, and that's never going to happen.

If you're dumb or stubborn enough to want to keep running an unpatched OS then carry on, but please stop recommending that others with less experience do so.

[Chicog]

There is also no real value to hackers which removes most of the risk. Apple until recently never had attacks but that wasn't because their system was so good but because a hacker would not make a name for them self if they hacked a system only a very small number of people use. Hackers go for the high usage platforms. Anyone who hacked Windows when it first came out was considered a hero in the hacking community but hacking Linux gave them no credit. This is what you are missing in it all.

What you are missing is that any PC that can be hijacked for a botnet is of value to criminals.

And most of the malware nowadays, especially from Russia, is for financial gain.

You seem to think hackers are all teenagers working out of their bedrooms to show off to their mates.

You could not be more wrong.

[Chicog]

Win XP is not supported any longer by Microsoft but let me ask you a question. How many times have you required support from Microsoft for Win XP? My guess is never. If I am right why upgrade at all? Win XP is stable and you can still get the patches that were issued before they stopped supporting the system.

Sure, I expect most people have never asked MS for support for XP, Win 7, Win 10, etc.,...that is, talking to MS on the phone, chatting with them online, letting them take control of your computer to fix an issue, etc. And that is because Windows is basically a stable OS.

But the critical support MS provides to "everyone" using Windows is updates/patches....those things that can download automatically to keep the OS running smooth and eliminate security problems. Those updates/patches you see coming out approx "every two weeks or so" (well, not for XP anymore)...or even more often if a critical update is pushed out immediately to fix a serious security problem just found.

MS ended updates/patches for XP in Apr 14, over two years ago which means not one update/patch has occurred since then...updates/patches that use to occur approx every two weeks. Basically when using XP you are using an OS that hasn't been updated for two years. Sure it may run stable...but just because a system appears to run stable does not mean it's safe from malware and other problems.

Maybe consider the updates like replacing the lock on the door because the bad guys found a way to get around your old lock...found out the combination of your old lock.

I haven't updated since 2010-2011 ,that's nearly 6 years with no problems. Never needed the redmond softies for support. What do you guys do with your computer to attract malware ?

Just minor ransomware when I was in europe never here in Thailand.

XP is certainly not unsafer than the newer versions and it wil only get better with less and less people using it.

They visit dubious sites and click on links that no one in their right mind would click on.

I have the luxury of a FireEye Web MPS appliance running that detects web based threats.

In the last year, probably 95% of the threats have come from people visiting sites that are not at all "dubious", but have been hacked and had links replaced without the owners knowing.

Normally I email the site owners to tell them, but most of the time they are small companies who have paid some "Web expert" to "write" their website and haven't got a clue about the implications.

[Chicog]

Win XP is not supported any longer by Microsoft but let me ask you a question. How many times have you required support from Microsoft for Win XP? My guess is never. If I am right why upgrade at all? Win XP is stable and you can still get the patches that were issued before they stopped supporting the system.

Sure, I expect most people have never asked MS for support for XP, Win 7, Win 10, etc.,...that is, talking to MS on the phone, chatting with them online, letting them take control of your computer to fix an issue, etc. And that is because Windows is basically a stable OS.

But the critical support MS provides to "everyone" using Windows is updates/patches....those things that can download automatically to keep the OS running smooth and eliminate security problems. Those updates/patches you see coming out approx "every two weeks or so" (well, not for XP anymore)...or even more often if a critical update is pushed out immediately to fix a serious security problem just found.

MS ended updates/patches for XP in Apr 14, over two years ago which means not one update/patch has occurred since then...updates/patches that use to occur approx every two weeks. Basically when using XP you are using an OS that hasn't been updated for two years. Sure it may run stable...but just because a system appears to run stable does not mean it's safe from malware and other problems.

Maybe consider the updates like replacing the lock on the door because the bad guys found a way to get around your old lock...found out the combination of your old lock.

Most of the people on here spouting about how safe XP is have no understand of how many different infection vectors there are these days, or what malware can do to conceal itself once it's there.

For all we know, they could be among the ones spewing out spam and they don't even know it.

They probably think their antivirus is working because it says there are no viruses on their PCs.

[Chicog]

By the way, in case anyone thinks I'm blowing M$'s trumpet, I'm not.

If you really want to keep your old PC and still have a secure and usable experience, with safe Internet tools, then there are heaps of quite friendly Linux builds out there (Look at www.distrowatch.com) and a Linux forum here that will be happy to help you set it up.

Anything is better than keeping a dead and insecure OS.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Chicog

[BuaBS]

XP is certainly not unsafer than the newer versions and it will only get better with less and less people using it.

Can you please explain how XP will only get better with less and less people using it?

With less people using it , it will be less targetted by malware.

The more MS changes away from XP with their spywareOS , the less new malware that targets it can be used against XP.

[BuaBS]

XP is certainly not unsafer than the newer versions and it wil only get better with less and less people using it.

Oh please stop spouting such rubbish.

The only way that will ever happen is if M$ give it to the open source community, and that's never going to happen.

If you're dumb or stubborn enough to want to keep running an unpatched OS then carry on, but please stop recommending that others with less experience do so.

Maybe you should stop scaring people out of a good OS in EVERY forum post that is about win XP. You really think it's good to force a 77 year old like the OP to another OS that looks like it's made by and for kids ?

If you hate win XP , why do you post on a subject which specifically states XP ?

Yes I will be running XP to the last day my hardware lets me.

To the OP : just make sure you have backups of your data. Worst of the worst case scenario is a re-install , or even quicker , re-installing an image of your trusted OS...win XP.

[Pib]

XP is certainly not unsafer than the newer versions and it will only get better with less and less people using it.

Can you please explain how XP will only get better with less and less people using it?

With less people using it , it will be less targetted by malware.

The more MS changes away from XP with their spywareOS , the less new malware that targets it can be used against XP.

Is that what the Church of XP preaches? I'd change churches. The older an OS becomes after support ends the more holes are found but never get patched...and then word of the holes spreads and spreads among the devils that attack computers/write malware. Just put their worm on their on the web and let it roam to find XP users. Sounds like before long all the worms will be heading only your way as most everyone else moves on to new versions of Windows. RIP XP...but you still live on with some folks.

[Naam]

s that what the Church of XP preaches? I'd change churches. The older an OS becomes after support ends the more holes are found but never get patched...and then word of the holes spreads and spreads among the devils that attack computers/write malware. Just put their worm on their on the web and let it roam to find XP users. Sounds like before long all the worms will be heading only your way as most everyone else moves on to new versions of Windows. RIP XP...but you still live on with some folks.

YES! XP will live with me till the day they prepare me for the crematorium.

reason: a software in which i invested thousands of manhours over a period of 30 years which does not run under any newer win versions.

for the record... i am an XP user since the beginning, never installed any updates or security patches except service pack 3. long live XP!

[Pib]

The Church of XP members like to live dangerously I guess. Not installing updates/patches is just not smart...but I'm a member of the Church of Use A Supported Version of Windows." That's OK, operating system religious freedom is fine.

But it tickles me when folks think their no longer supported OS version has no vulnerabilities since their computer appears to be working fine as new vulnerabilities are always being discover with older and newer versions of Windows. And many times a new vulnerability affects a part of the OS that is common to all versions of Windows...from Win 10 to XP, but when Microsoft releases an update/patch it only released for Vista (still supported) through Win 10. The XP folks are left with the vulnerability. And it not only applies to the OS but browsers.

Just for example a snapshot of one 10 May 16 critical security update from the Microsoft website...you see it fixes Vista through Win 8.1...and Win 10 is probably fixed in a separately listed update since Microsoft tends to separate out Win 10 updates. XP folks don't get the critical update to fix the vulnerability since Microsoft no longer supports XP. And this is just one example of a typical update/patch occurrence since it seems Microsoft releases updates/patches every week or two or sooner sometimes.

[gandalf12]

There is also no real value to hackers which removes most of the risk. Apple until recently never had attacks but that wasn't because their system was so good but because a hacker would not make a name for them self if they hacked a system only a very small number of people use. Hackers go for the high usage platforms. Anyone who hacked Windows when it first came out was considered a hero in the hacking community but hacking Linux gave them no credit. This is what you are missing in it all.

What you are missing is that any PC that can be hijacked for a botnet is of value to criminals.

And most of the malware nowadays, especially from Russia, is for financial gain.

You seem to think hackers are all teenagers working out of their bedrooms to show off to their mates.

You could not be more wrong.

I did say that in another post which you obviously never read. No I dont think they are kids at all but there is a high level of being the first to hack this or that site within the hacking community. This is international not local. Why do you think they have the hacking competition every year in Vegas? These guys are very very good but they do apart from the black hat hackers want recognition of what they have achieved.

[Chicog]

There is also no real value to hackers which removes most of the risk. Apple until recently never had attacks but that wasn't because their system was so good but because a hacker would not make a name for them self if they hacked a system only a very small number of people use. Hackers go for the high usage platforms. Anyone who hacked Windows when it first came out was considered a hero in the hacking community but hacking Linux gave them no credit. This is what you are missing in it all.

What you are missing is that any PC that can be hijacked for a botnet is of value to criminals.

And most of the malware nowadays, especially from Russia, is for financial gain.

You seem to think hackers are all teenagers working out of their bedrooms to show off to their mates.

You could not be more wrong.

I did say that in another post which you obviously never read. No I dont think they are kids at all but there is a high level of being the first to hack this or that site within the hacking community. This is international not local. Why do you think they have the hacking competition every year in Vegas? These guys are very very good but they do apart from the black hat hackers want recognition of what they have achieved.

Hackers like this are not the ones you need to worry about.

The ones you need to worry about are the ones targeting all the wide open vulnerabilities you have on your XP setup and finding ever more creative ways to use them.

[Chicog]

reason: a software in which i invested thousands of manhours over a period of 30 years which does not run under any newer win versions.

Translation: A piece of software so badly written that it doesn't use the API calls that Microsoft have been preaching for years.

[Aussie69]

They used a hardened form of XP and may even still pay Microsoft for updates.

They are certainly paying for ongoing support. There are many global enterprises still using XP, some government's, military, finance organizations use special builds, but they all pay through the nose to ensure Microsoft continues support.

The global enterprise I work for did the upgrade from XP to 7 a few years back to avoid these fees; but it is a huge undertaking for some organizations.

People who talk about macs vs win, or the tired old BSOD examples are generally people conversant only with the retail end of the market, with no concept of the complex systems windows powers around the world.

[Chicog]

The Church of XP members like to live dangerously I guess. Not installing updates/patches is just not smart...but I'm a member of the Church of Use A Supported Version of Windows." That's OK, operating system religious freedom is fine.

But it tickles me when folks think their no longer supported OS version has no vulnerabilities since their computer appears to be working fine as new vulnerabilities are always being discover with older and newer versions of Windows. And many times a new vulnerability affects a part of the OS that is common to all versions of Windows...from Win 10 to XP, but when Microsoft releases an update/patch it only released for Vista (still supported) through Win 10. The XP folks are left with the vulnerability. And it not only applies to the OS but browsers.

Just for example a snapshot of one 10 May 16 critical security update from the Microsoft website...you see it fixes Vista through Win 8.1...and Win 10 is probably fixed in a separately listed update since Microsoft tends to separate out Win 10 updates. XP folks don't get the critical update to fix the vulnerability since Microsoft no longer supports XP. And this is just one example of a typical update/patch occurrence since it seems Microsoft releases updates/patches every week or two or sooner sometimes.

Capture.JPG

You forgot MS16-062 which has already done damage in the wild.

You can't tell some people....

[Pib]

It could be worst....they could still be using 1970's 8 inch floppy disks and using IBM Series 1 computers like some of the U.S. nuclear forces still use. But their IBM Series 1 computers have been modified to include a high end video card....can't beat it for playing Global Thermonuclear War Games.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36385839

[Naam]

reason: a software in which i invested thousands of manhours over a period of 30 years which does not run under any newer win versions.

Translation: A piece of software so badly written that it doesn't use the API calls that Microsoft have been preaching for years.

you just demonstrate your ignorance by claiming that you are not aware that there is software which needs certain DOS features not available in WIN versions after XP.

newer versions of this software do exist but the formulas and macros in which i invested my manhours do not translate.

i have a dirty grin for the paranoia "support, patches and updates" and the claim "newer WIN versions are more secure". if they were then "critical updates as of may16" wouldn't be necessary.

[Chicog]

reason: a software in which i invested thousands of manhours over a period of 30 years which does not run under any newer win versions.

Translation: A piece of software so badly written that it doesn't use the API calls that Microsoft have been preaching for years.

you just demonstrate your ignorance by claiming that you are not aware that there is software which needs certain DOS features not available in WIN versions after XP.

newer versions of this software do exist but the formulas and macros in which i invested my manhours do not translate.

i have a dirty grin for the paranoia "support, patches and updates" and the claim "newer WIN versions are more secure". if they were then "critical updates as of may16" wouldn't be necessary.

Which DOS features are in XP and not in later versions?

More to the point, why don't you run XP in a VM on a more secure OS?

And yes those critical updates in May are not available in XP so it's wide open.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Chicog

[Naam]

Pib

Just for example a snapshot of one 10 May 16 critical security update from the Microsoft website...you see it fixes Vista through Win 8.1...and Win 10 is probably fixed in a separately listed update since Microsoft tends to separate out Win 10 updates. XP folks don't get the critical update to fix the vulnerability since Microsoft no longer supports XP. And this is just one example of a typical update/patch occurrence since it seems Microsoft releases updates/patches every week or two or sooner sometimes.

Translation: pieces of software so badly written that...

[Naam]

Which DOS features are in XP and not in later versions?

sorry old chap, i have no intention to waste valuable time on fruitless discussions.

[Chicog]

It could be worst....they could still be using 1970's 8 inch floppy disks and using IBM Series 1 computers like some of the U.S. nuclear forces still use. But their IBM Series 1 computers have been modified to include a high end video card....can't beat it for playing Global Thermonuclear War Games.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36385839

I was hearing about that on Steve Gibson's podcast.

You have to laugh.

[Chicog]

Which DOS features are in XP and not in later versions?

sorry old chap, i have no intention to waste valuable time on fruitless discussions.

Yeah, I guessed as much.

[Pib]

And here all these years I thought updates/patches to fix and improve an OS was a good thing. But I see now I was wrong...I've seen the light. Those devils at Microsoft have fooled me all these years. I'm switching to the Church of Turn Off Updates. I now feel saved.

[Naam]

And here all these years I thought updates/patches to fix and improve an OS was a good thing. But I see now I was wrong...I've seen the light. Those devils at Microsoft have fooled me all these years. I'm switching to the Church of Turn Off Updates. I now feel saved.

he who never made a mistake should throw the first stone

[chrisinth]

Running an unsupported OS on the Windows platform, is, IMO, an endless argument. On the one hand we have the camp that believe their third party anti-virus/malware solution will protect their system and there is no requirement for updates. Second camp are the ones who either don't care or don't mind if their data is lost/corrupted through lack of knowledge.

Then there is the section of users that realize every operating system is prone to exploitation and trust the Owner of the software to 'plug the holes' by the way of updates and fixes.

Each to their own. However, there are certain things that need to be taken into consideration (as with almost everything) which may at first not be obvious. The argument that because a system has become unsupported by MS does not (in anyway) mean that the 'hackers' stop probing for exploitation is extremely naive. If fixes become obsolete, IMO, the unsupported system would become more interesting.

As pointed out by Chicog in post #36 ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/920655-xp-user/?p=10796582 ) , security of your personal computer doesn't by any means stop at the threat of the annoyance of malware attacks against your data. That said, with the increase in ransomware attacks these days, I personally would not risk running an unsupported system as exploits are discovered every week (on all systems!). What Chicog means by a botnet is as below (own explanation):

Botnet

A network of computers infected with malicious software and controlled as a group without the owners' knowledge, e.g., to send spam messages, consolidated brute force bandwidth attacks, DDos, etc.

And what I mean by Ransomware, again personal description, is:

Ransomware

An attack on your computer where malware (or exploits in your system) has infiltrated and encrypted your personal date. No easy fix to this without paying for the unlock code, or going through a complete reinstall. If you are not using imaging for your backup solution, this is a PITA.

Exploits

A service, or part of a service, that when accessed by either keystroke or code changing, gives the 'hacker' full or partial access to the entire system.

I'm not trying to teach people to suck eggs here, but rather pointing out scenarios that some may not be aware off. And an unsupported system just makes things more dangerous (IMO)...........................

Edited May 29, 2016 by chrisinth

[Chicog]

Running an unsupported OS on the Windows platform, is, IMO, an endless argument. On the one hand we have the camp that believe their third party anti-virus/malware solution will protect their system and there is no requirement for updates.

Unless you're running something that isn't signature based, like Bromium, you can consider your antivirus to be next to useless in this day and age.