Saved Bookmarks
| 1. |
Solve : The Risk of Running Windows XP Forever.? |
|
Answer» The Risk of Running Windows XP Forever. ... after April 8, 2014, organizations that continue to run Windows XP won’t have this advantage over attackers any longer. The very first month that Microsoft releases security updates for supported versions of Windows, attackers will reverse engineer those updates, find the vulnerabilities and test Windows XP to see if it shares those vulnerabilities. If it does, attackers will attempt to develop exploit code that can take advantage of those vulnerabilities on Windows XP. Since a security update will never become available for Windows XP to address these vulnerabilities, Windows XP will essentially have a “zero day” vulnerability forever. How often could this scenario occur? Between July 2012 and July 2013 Windows XP was an affected product in 45 Microsoft security bulletins, of which 30 also affected Windows 7 and Windows 8.Source: http://blogs.technet.com/b/security/archive/2013/08/15/the-risk-of-running-windows-xp-after-support-ends.aspx Now the problem here is that other people are using the same kind of logic. It is as if only Microsoft can stop virus attacks, therefore all must update on the path MS says we must follow. Did it sever occur to any that other organizations c an offer XP users some reasonable level of security? What do you say? For me it's not even the fact that XP is full of security holes - XP is 12 years old, why people still insist on using it is beyond me! All that will happen to those people is that software developers will just drop support for XP. For example, IE8 is the newest version of IE to run on XP, web application developers LIKE me have a dreadful job trying to make our stuff work in IE8 - Nowadays my rule is that my stuff must work in IE8, but I don't care how it looks as it's simply not worth supporting XP users. This will be the same down the line when Firefox and Google Chrome/Chromium drop support for XP. Continuing to support XP holds development back massively, software developers struggle to take advantage of all of the new features of Windows Vista/7/8 if they have to support XP. Quote It is as if only Microsoft can stop virus attacks, therefore all must update on the path MS says we must follow.Sure antivirus can still work on XP, but it's only Microsoft that can patch underlying vulnerabilities in the core operating system, with this not happening, people will be open to security issues no matter what antivirus they are running. Quote Did it sever occur to any that other organizations c an offer XP users some reasonable level of security?Doubt this will continue for long, I can see antivirus companies also dropping support for XP in their products- Why should they spend time and money supporting users who are simply too stubborn to move to something up-to-date?XP is still ok to use online, but depending on its use though!!! I wouldnt be using XP or any older Windows OS for anything (high risk) such as paying bills, checking banking info, making online PURCHASES with credit cards, or checking primary e-mail etc. I have a Toshiba Netbook with an Intel Atom 1.66Ghz and 2GB 667Mhz DDR2 RAM with 60GB OCZ SSD that is running Windows XP Home SP3. While I once used this netbook for more important (higher risk) online communications such as all listed above. I have since replaced the (higher risk) data communications with a trusted Windows 7 system that is only used for that purpose. I don't use my gaming system or other system that I download games and try all sorts of software on etc as for this system is running with the risk that something could slip into it under the radar of AV and Malwarebytes scans, and so its best to be over protective and lower your risk then use the same system that others use as well as yourself use for installing and playing new games or trying new free utilities etc in which one could be a future data security threat. Since I have multiple systems, I can do this. However if its SOMEONE who has just 1 computer and cant afford another to designate it for the sole purpose of only extremely confidential data communications, if they were running XP now and cant buy a new system and want to have a better sense of security they can either switch to Linux OS for free or buy a copy of Windows 7 ( probably 32-bit for systems with "1GB to 3GB RAM" unless they have "4GB or more RAM" to go with 64-bit and make 64-bit worth while) and be covered with security updates. I have gotten Windows 7 32-bit to run on a computer that was a 2002 year model eMachine with Pentium 4 2.00Ghz with 1GB DDR 266Mhz RAM and 60GB IDE HDD, however it was not a smooth upgrade. Intel did not make newer drivers for older Intel 845 GL chipset and so the integrated graphics were stuck at 640x480 with 256 color with Windows 7 32-bit after install. I ended up forcing Windows 7 32-bit Home Premium to take the Intel 845 GL chipset driver which was an XP driver to get the integrated graphics to top out at 1024x768 with 16-bit color. BUT with only 1GB of RAM and the fact that this was an early Pentium 4 which was not HT and not as much cache as the later Pentium 4 CPU's as well as only 2.00 Ghz, it was running Windows 7 32-bit slowly, and there was no such thing as multitasking. BUT... if I had activated this installation ( which I didnt, it was just a test ), I could have fully patched this computer that was 12 years old and been able to go online to higher risk websites and been protected under latest *Reactive Security Threats. ( * Most MS Updates are reactive, and so even if your running Windows 7 or 8 / 8.1 you can still get hit with a newly found vulnerability that has yet to be patched ) Based on my experience of Windows 7 on older hardware, my suggestion is to run it on a system with at least 2GB RAM even though it can run on 1GB. The eMachine computer made in 2002 might have run Windows 7 32-bit better on 2GB of RAM, but the motherboard only supported 1GB RAM maximum 512MB per slot with 2 memory slots. Also the CPU should be 2.66Ghz or faster for the Pentium 4 series CPU's for best results. I haven't tested Windows 7 32-bit on a Celeron CPU from the Pentium 4 era socket 478 or 775 CPU's, but performance would be lesser than a Pentium 4. Ideally I'd suggest an INTEL Core 2 Duo CPU or AMD Athlon64 x2 CPU or better depending on if your running INTEL or AMD. RAM I would suggest at least 2GB for Windows 7 32-bit and at least 4GB for Windows 7 64-bit. I have 2 older systems at are running this era CPU with Windows 7 and they run it very well. Below is the CPU, RAM, and OS of each one. The INTEL is my wifes: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4Ghz with 4MB Cache ( 2 cores ) 3GB DDR2 667Mhz RAM ( 2 x 1GB sticks and 2 x 512MB sticks ) Windows 7 32-bit Home Premium The AMD is my older gaming system: AMD Athlon64 x2 4450B 2.3Ghz with 10% O.C. to 2.53Ghz with 1MB Cache shared between both cores ( 2 cores ) 4GB DDR2 800Mhz RAM ( 2 x 2GB sticks * Maximum supported for motherboard ) Windows 7 64-bit Home Premium ***Also for anyone wanting Windows 7 and has a really old Windows XP machine that would crawl with Windows 7 because it doesnt match up well to the specs I shared.... There are many refurb computers out there for sale for as cheap as $129.99 with free shipping that come preinstalled with Windows 7 32-bit and usually come with 2GB RAM. But these systems are usually Pentium D's or early Core 2 Duo systems and are not rated well for modern heavy graphics games. However some have PCI Express slots so you can add a better GPU via Video Card. So for just about the cost of Windows 7 itself you can get it + the hardware included that may be an upgrade to what you already have which the hardware can be looked at as free with the Windows 7 upgrade at this price tag. I took advantage of a refurb deal like this through Tiger Direct back in 2007 to buy 40 qty HP SFF Desktop Computers loaded with XP Professional on Pentium 4 2.66Ghz CPU's, 512MB RAM, 80GB IDE HDD's, with CD-ROM's for only $109.99 per refurb computer. This was wen XP Pro was still $130 per license. So I upgraded 40 computers for this business to XP Pro and got rid of older Pentium 1, 2, and 3 systems that were running NT4 SP6 and Windows 2000 Pro SP4 and we now had faster systems for free plus bought 40 copies of XP Pro at $20 off per computer. This was easy to sell to the GM of the business. These systems also ran well up until I left the company in July 2009. Quote from: Geek-9pm on March 13, 2014, 03:51:03 PM Now the problem here is that other people are using the same kind of logic. It is as if only Microsoft can stop virus attacks, therefore all must update on the path MS says we must follow. Did it sever occur to any that other organizations c an offer XP users some reasonable level of security?There is a massive confusion about what the lack of security updates will really mean. Some people seem to think it means that XP simply won't get security updates. And, of course- that is correct. What people fail to realize is that once XP stops receiving updates, it will not be necessary for malware authors to look very hard to try to find exploits in XP they can take advantage of- because Microsoft will be delivering exploits right to their doorstep for examination in the form of Vista, 7, and 8 security patches. Once XP is no longer receiving security updates, every single Vista, 7, and 8 security patch is going to be reverse ENGINEERED (as usual) and that information can be used to attack XP. Remember that Vista,7, and 8 are all based on the same codebase as XP and as a result a good number of low-level security issues that turn up in later versions can also affect XP. Therefore every security patch for later versions becomes a likely security exploit for Windows XP, because XP will not be receiving a relevant patch. My favourite part is that there are people that use this as an example of Microsoft's "forced upgrade path". Often this comes from those in the Open Source community. They of course fail to recognize that the equivalent versions of Linux from 2001 have not been supported since 2006 at the latest for Long-term support versions... |
|