You would surely have heard of this cyberattack with the publicity it has had.
If you are running Windows, Microsoft has released security patches (http://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=KB4012598&cha=ema&elm=lin&omcid=wacrynewsletter&seg=pai_lic&utm_campaign=wacrynewsletter&utm_content=Avast-Newsletter-WannaCry-ransomware_EN-ALL&utm_medium=email&utm_source=eml_newsletter&var=Avast-Newsletter-WannaCry-ransomware_EN-ALL) for various versions.
Interesting that XP is included as they say they don't support that version anymore. Second time, as I recall, they have done that after a worldwide incident.
Windows 10 doesn't get a look in but, presumably, it is similarly covered with automatic updates.
Have seen it a couple of times at work. Most annoying, as the poor person has all of their actual "work" work lost.
Imagine losing all of the files on your computer. It's devastating. Always back up people and if at work, save to network drives.
Who would have thought that having a known backdoor for the NSA would compromise security?
Rant rant I don't want anyone to know the filth I look at on the Internet rant.
(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/id-rather-just-confess-to-the-murder.jpg)
https://youtu.be/ldkMJZhSVqk
(https://i.imgur.com/nonheg5.jpg)
http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-cartoon-051617-windows-cyberattack
:laugh2:
Pedro
I second Pedro.
Is a Commodore 64 actually internet capable?
The only people who get WannaCry are people who are slack about security. Microsoft released a patch for WannaCry two months ago, which applied to all versions of Windows from Vista to 10. If they had been using automatic updates, they wouldn't have gotten WannaCry in the first place. Windows XP is a different matter, but anyone who uses an operating system that's over 15 years old and hasn't been patched in over 3 years deserves every piece of malware they get.
Furthermore, my antivirus software has what's called a "protective shield", which actively prevents programs from encrypting my files without my permission. Thus, I already had two layers of protection against WannaCry before it was released into the wild, and I did an external backup on Sunday to give myself a third layer of protection. Thus, I cannot understand what all the fuss is about, because WannaCry is really easy to prevent.
Yes! All I need is a Commodore 64 (allegedly the highest selling computer ever) and one of these modems and I too can surf the net.
(http://www.coqdiddles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/acoustic-coupler.jpg)
Quote from: HerculesThe only people who get WannaCry are people who are slack about security. Microsoft released a patch for WannaCry two months ago, which applied to all versions of Windows from Vista to 10. If they had been using automatic updates, they wouldn't have gotten WannaCry in the first place. Windows XP is a different matter, but anyone who uses an operating system that's over 15 years old and hasn't been patched in over 3 years deserves every piece of malware they get.
Furthermore, my antivirus software has what's called a "protective shield", which actively prevents programs from encrypting my files without my permission. Thus, I already had two layers of protection against WannaCry before it was released into the wild, and I did an external backup on Sunday to give myself a third layer of protection. Thus, I cannot understand what all the fuss is about, because WannaCry is really easy to prevent.
That's a bit harsh.
Ransomware is the equivalent of throwing a brick through someone's window, with your Glazier company's business card attached.
Across corporate environments, patches need to undergo compatibility testing with existing applications before they can be released, and automatic updates are almost never used.
My organization has thousands of users across Australia, but it has a huge volume in the Pilbara and other remote areas, which are on the end of 3G connections. Sending updates down to them isn't a simple task, as updates fail and outsource providers are idiots.
Security is obviously a huge concern, however there is always going to be an ability to exploit a small percentage within an environment.
Quote from: 'JeffH' pid='108673' dateline='1495148243'Yes! All I need is a Commodore 64 (allegedly the highest selling computer ever) and one of these modems and I too can surf the net.
What's the speed like Jeff - smoke signal standard :grin:
Pedro
Better than semaphore.
(http://www.anbg.gov.au/images/flags/semaphore/e.gif)
Something that everyone seems to be missing is that the patches being discussed DO NOT stop all infections from happening.
The patches ONLY stop subsequent spread within a network.
If someone opens a wannacry attachment on a patched machine, that machine will be infected and start encypting files it has access to.
1. There is nothing wrong with 15-year-old software. Or hardware. There are still a lot of VAXes out there, and probably mainframes too. If only new is good, we better throw away our predecimals, vintage cars and smelly old paintings, eh? Oh, and turn the museums into shopping centres and carparks. :P
2. Winblows... Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... [smug smirk] :angel:
Computers are different, though. They change so rapidly that 15-year-old software is antique. :ok:
Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='108687' dateline='1495174026'Computers are different, though. They change so rapidly that 15-year-old software is antique. :ok:
Not true.
One of the things about standardisation is that it locks you in. Every IBM mainframe, and every clone, was essentially a System-360 because the architecture had to be backwards compatible.
Similarly, you can trace Intel architecture back to the 8086. Features may get added, dies may get smaller, chips may be faster, but at the lowest level, the code's the same. And a lot of the x86 architecture was based on the 8080 anyway, so while not object-code compatible, you could compile and run a fair chunk of code on them.
I'm not against progress. But what I see is advances being squandered on bullshit. When I move a window, I don't really need fancy animations to eat up CPU cycles and chew through power faster. Especially on a portable device.
When I double my hardware's performance, I expect to see double the performance for stuff that matters to me. I do not want to see worse performance than I had on the older gear, just because the later OS I now have is screwed up.
At last - someone who knows what they're talk in about =
Similarly, you can trace Intel architecture back to the 8086.
Is this natural selection?
Sorry - oldie = perspective here who knew this was possible 20 years ago
msd
Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='108691' dateline='1495181253'Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='108687' dateline='1495174026'Computers are different, though. They change so rapidly that 15-year-old software is antique. :ok:
Not true.
One of the things about standardisation is that it locks you in. Every IBM mainframe, and every clone, was essentially a System-360 because the architecture had to be backwards compatible.
Similarly, you can trace Intel architecture back to the 8086. Features may get added, dies may get smaller, chips may be faster, but at the lowest level, the code's the same. And a lot of the x86 architecture was based on the 8080 anyway, so while not object-code compatible, you could compile and run a fair chunk of code on them.
I'm not against progress. But what I see is advances being squandered on bullshit. When I move a window, I don't really need fancy animations to eat up CPU cycles and chew through power faster. Especially on a portable device.
When I double my hardware's performance, I expect to see double the performance for stuff that matters to me. I do not want to see worse performance than I had on the older gear, just because the later OS I now have is screwed up.
The funny thing is that there isn't much that I do faster on this quad core 8 gig of ram machine that my old 486 DX100 with 8 meg of ram could do at the time.
Viruses weren't much of a problem either back then :angel:
Software wasn't bloated then either.
Quote from: 'JeffH' pid='108701' dateline='1495188214'Software wasn't bloated then either.
HeHe
I can remember loading up my new 486 with the new win95 and I thought it was a HUGE programme.
I had to load the three DOS discs then the three Win 3.11 discs and from memory I think there were another dozen or so discs to load up Win95.
The discs were 3.5 floppies, I am pretty sure that the new generation wouldn't know what these look like :angel:
Quote from: 'trout' pid='108702' dateline='1495189265'The discs were 3.5 floppies, I am pretty sure that the new generation wouldn't know what these look like :angel:
Yes they do.
It's what you click to save the file
Quote from: 'trout' pid='108702' dateline='1495189265'The discs were 3.5 floppies, I am pretty sure that the new generation wouldn't know what these look like :angel:
Actually they do with 3.5's.School kids are taught a brief history of Computers,many Schools and Libraries still have a floppy drive's in their old Desktop Computers.
Its only since the mid 2000's that they stopped fitting 3.5 Floppy Drives but i agree that in Computer years that's Ancient history.
I used to work in a school.
In 2011 I showed a Year 12 student a tape cassette and asked him if he knew what it was.
He didn't.
His friend then piped up "ooooh ... ummm m .... it's something that has talking on it, isn't it?"