Just got Windows 8, but . . .

[m0de]

Originally Posted by dragon890x

^ What "support"?

Also, I believe that Windows 7 does a fine job at providing lagless FFR gameplay. If you really want to use a Windows OS, I would highly recommend selecting it.

[dAnceguy117]

Originally Posted by dragon890x

^ What "support"?

security patches. hopping from website to website will be akin to stepping onto a football field in street clothes.

Originally Posted by Hateandhatred

Inb4 some group releases security updates for x independantly

XP enthusiasts are too niche of a group to have any chance at keeping up, imo.

[dragon890x]

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117

security patches.

That's funny, I remember a Windows XP "important update" that contained software with an embedded virus.

On a lighter note, worrying about Windows Updates for security doesn't do justice to your anti-virus or firewall software. If you truly are going to waste your time setting up barricades thinking no one will be able to hack into your system, you should put effort into keeping those updated. Microsoft dropped major support for Windows XP a long time ago. Look at all of the problems that have occurred, or in this case haven't.

When it comes to viruses and being 'hacked', the number one cause is the user.

I'm just saying, Microsoft's support isn't worth mentioning unless your running a modern OS and are receiving a major update. To clarify, an update worth calling a Service Pack, not a security update.

[dAnceguy117]

Originally Posted by dragon890x

That's funny, I remember a Windows XP "important update" that contained software with an embedded virus.

yikes, I haven't heard about this incident. link plz?

Originally Posted by dragon890x

On a lighter note, worrying about Windows Updates for security doesn't do justice to your anti-virus or firewall software. If you truly are going to waste your time setting up barricades thinking no one will be able to hack into your system, you should put effort into keeping those updated.

antivirus software works well when fighting old malware. that probably covers most of the attacks that an average home user would encounter. still, AV software will only get you so far.

if you firewall most of your ports, that does help with safety quite a bit. some other precautions, such as disabling scripting in your web browser and only allowing the browser to navigate to your own list of trusted websites, can assist a great deal as well.

I would argue that these precautions limit usability, however. manually blocking/allowing access to ports whenever you want to use a certain type of process would be a pain, and your computer is still prone to being attacked while those ports are open. personally, I would much rather spend a lot less time worrying about what might be out there. switching to a modern OS will almost definitely help with security, and it's quick and easy.

Originally Posted by dragon890x

Look at all of the problems that have occurred, or in this case haven't.

http://www.securelist.com/en/analysi...tatistics_2011

For the purposes of mass infection, malicious users often take advantage of vulnerabilities that have been well known for a long time, while zero-day exploits are saved for more targeted attacks. The reason is simple: there are plenty of computers around the world still running with outdated software and operating systems. Specifically, within the KSN network 63% of computers that were attacked were running on Windows XP, while only 37% of attacks targeted Windows 7 and Vista.

the OS itself may not be the cause of this huge discrepancy (or at least not the only factor). still, the longer an OS hangs around, the more time malware developers have to poke some holes. XP has been out for an eternity.

Originally Posted by dragon890x

When it comes to viruses and being 'hacked', the number one cause is the user.

true, but it's far from the only cause. reminded me of this post:

Originally Posted by UserNameGoesHere

Install WindowsXP original edition (not SP1 or SP2) from official Microsoft installation media on a brand new hard drive and then immediately get the updates (don't browse any websites or install anything else first) and let me know how that works out for you.

10 out of 10 says you'll be infected before you can even get the updates.

The "solution" is to block specific ports in a hardware firewall, disable very specific things on WindowsXP prior to ever connecting a network cable, change several other things, and then connect to update and hope it's good enough to be able to get the updates before you get hit with something exploiting that older unpatched version of Windows. And/or download the updates on a different machine, copy them to some media you'll then use on the unpatched machine (external hard drive for example) to patch prior to ever touching the Internet.

Mind explaining why that's 100% the user's fault without resorting to lol buy a newer computer or lol buy a newer version of Windows or lol use Linux/Mac or some other non-answer?

[dragon890x]

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117

yikes, I haven't heard about this incident. link plz?

You're asking me to find a needle in a haystack. I'm not going to assume Microsoft would pay money to cover the incident up, but I remember them having to roll back some updates and people trying to sue them because of this event. This was roughly a decade ago.

Did you know that one of the updates in question gave Microsoft the ability to access your computer remotely without your permission?

Anyway, I tried doing a quick Google search for you. But, after 10 pages of tutorials on how to remove root-kits, I'm done wasting my time.

Now, I'd love to get into a huge discussion about which is more important, Windows Security Updates or your anti-virus/firewall software. However, I don't have much time to explain my point of view. Let me try to give a brief summary.

First of all, you shouldn't need an anti-virus. Being too lazy to manually open/close ports is a poor excuse. On top of that, most are closed on default, and those that are open are harmless. I doubt you are running SSH on port 80, unless porn.exe was too hard to resist installing.

The support you are mentioning still seems worthless in my opinion. I would rather have an anti-virus and firewall setup, and only worry about those. Why? Because I can manually check for viruses within a file when needed (there are free websites that'd do this for you), and I'd love to know exactly which ports are being opened and what's using them. In other words, they are tools that the user can control.

If being lazy was a quality reason that supports your argument, than I suppose giving complete trust to your local automobile repairman is the smart thing to do. Who has the time to find out if they're ripping you off? As long as your car is up-to-date, right?

In short, if you are going to play no part in securing your computer and are leaving it up to these all-powerful updates, you might as well open all of your ports, download all of the porn.exes, and challenge 4chan to a free-for-all. Otherwise, use your brain and you'll find avoiding viruses is actually an easy task.

I apologize for speaking in a rude manner, but I can't see your argument winning unless we were talking about a machine on a business or other important live environment.

Edit: I'd also like to add that using a certain OS (ex. Windows XP) doesn't mean you'll instantly get infected. This sounds more ridiculous than my claims about Microsoft without providing evidence. I think certain people are too paranoid for their own good. Oh well, there is money to be made in providing comfort.

[dAnceguy117]

Originally Posted by dragon890x

You're asking me to find a needle in a haystack. I'm not going to assume Microsoft would pay money to cover the incident up, but I remember them having to roll back some updates and people trying to sue them because of this event. This was roughly a decade ago.

Did you know that one of the updates in question gave Microsoft the ability to access your computer remotely without your permission?

haha, I believe you. I apologize if I wasted your time by asking you to provide a link; I shouldn't have assumed you were referring to a specific article. my bad.

Originally Posted by dragon890x

Now, I'd love to get into a huge discussion about which is more important, Windows Security Updates or your anti-virus/firewall software. However, I don't have much time to explain my point of view.

hit me up (or revive this thread) if you have time later on. I plan on having professional-level knowledge of this type of stuff within a year or two. I was never interested enough to do a lot of learning on my own, though, so I honestly have some catch-up work to do. any insights you have would be appreciated.

Originally Posted by dragon890x

First of all, you shouldn't need an anti-virus.

can't hurt though, right? one little "oops" and you could let some pretty nasty stuff onto your machine or local network. keeping an AV handy could save you the hassle of removing stuff yourself, at the cost of taking up a tiny portion of your hard drive. seems reasonable enough to me.

Originally Posted by dragon890x

Being too lazy to manually open/close ports is a poor excuse.

fair enough. the average user won't have much of a clue here, but if you're able and willing to do so, more power to you.

Originally Posted by dragon890x

On top of that, most are closed on default, and those that are open are harmless. I doubt you are running SSH on port 80, unless porn.exe was too hard to resist installing.

it seemed like a good idea at the time...

Originally Posted by dragon890x

The support you are mentioning still seems worthless in my opinion. I would rather have an anti-virus and firewall setup, and only worry about those. Why? Because I can manually check for viruses within a file when needed (there are free websites that'd do this for you), and I'd love to know exactly which ports are being opened and what's using them. In other words, they are tools that the user can control.

again, if you're cool with carefully managing ports, then that's great. if you're willing to keep track of all of your files and constantly check for infections, that can work too. I believe you'd be in the vast minority of people in that regard.

Originally Posted by dragon890x

If being lazy was a quality reason that supports your argument, than I suppose giving complete trust to your local automobile repairman is the smart thing to do. Who has the time to find out if they're ripping you off? As long as your car is up-to-date, right?

I don't see much relevance in this analogy. security updates from microsoft are free. if you're talking about the cost of upgrading from XP to 7 or what have you, note that I never explicitly made such a suggestion. you have plenty of Linux distros to choose from.

Originally Posted by dragon890x

use your brain and you'll find avoiding viruses is actually an easy task.

true in many cases, but not all. new malware, created and propogated in the near future, will circumvent our current practices. that's how the game is played. limiting vulnerabilities will always be a good idea.

Originally Posted by dragon890x

I apologize for speaking in a rude manner, but I can't see your argument winning unless we were talking about a machine on a business or other important live environment.

I'm not trying to win any argument here. I just want to spread the word about XP being a dangerous choice for most users.

[Frank Munoz]

Iono, my bro has a w8 lappertopper and i kinda like it.
and it runs ffr in browser like a charm.

eh.,

[dAnceguy117]

if the lappytoppy has good specs and a compatible version of flash, everything should be good2go

[jgano]

So, my parents updated the desktop computer last night, and now FFR sort of works on there. It still doesn't work on the Windows 8 theme, but it does when I switch to the Windows 7 desktop theme. I don't think it's a Flash player issue because Youtube worked just fine beforehand.

Still, I only use the desktop to preview and practice the charts. I always play for score on my old laptop with XP, and I'm gonna continue to do so as long as I can.

[Frank Munoz]

The least I've played ffr with was (once again) my bro's laptop~ and surprisingly it was the best ffr i've ever played
- i3 core processor
- 1g of ram
runs at 2.8gh naturally
windows 8.

jealous cause I have 8gs of ram running w7, i5
overclocked to run at about 3.0gh because mine originally ran at 2.3g???
and it's still laggy, in and out of browser for me.

[dAnceguy117]

t'would be very interesting to get stats and input from a bunch of FFR players. hardware specs, OS, any software tweaks, flash version, browser vs standalone, quality of experience.

does a thread like that exist? if not, I think I'll start one within a week or two.

[dragon890x]

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117

haha, I believe you. I apologize if I wasted your time by asking you to provide a link; I shouldn't have assumed you were referring to a specific article. my bad.

I was the one who decided to waste my time, not you. There's no need to apologize. lol

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117

can't hurt though, right?

Nope, it can't hurt if your concern for obtaining viruses are greater than your computer's performance.

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117

again, if you're cool with carefully managing ports, then that's great. if you're willing to keep track of all of your files and constantly check for infections, that can work too. I believe you'd be in the vast minority of people in that regard.

I never do those two things. :3

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117

I don't see much relevance in this analogy. security updates from microsoft are free. if you're talking about the cost of upgrading from XP to 7 or what have you, note that I never explicitly made such a suggestion. you have plenty of Linux distros to choose from.

I was waiting for you to ask something in regards to that statement. It's about trust and reliability. Patching holes in an OS leaves room for more holes to be made. Opening or closing a port only does one of two things, opens or closes a port. It doesn't open or close other ports.

I know that explanation might sound confusing, but think about it. When you close a port to fix a problem, you fix the problem. When you patch your system to fit the latest and greatest security model, you become one of the many millions of users who are running the same security. You put yourself on the target for those who develop viruses, aiming to hit a wider audience. You did nothing to fix a problem, you are entrusting Microsoft to fix it instead.

My point, putting complete trust into Windows Security Updates doesn't save you from anything. Your protection will be short lived, if it even provides you protection. It doesn't compare to taking manual control of your network's ports or machines. The majority of the problems out there can be stopped by simply adjusting a few settings and keeping a keen eye out for suspicious files and activity.

Even network administrators have to watch out for updates. Some updates change settings that could bring down a network, or even break a machine's partition (which has happened to me before I had much experience). This is why you should never update a live server's OS without testing the updates before hand. Updating has just as much risk as not updating.

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117

I just want to spread the word about XP being a dangerous choice for most users.

I still think that this claim is wrong.

These quotes are killing me.

@Frank Munoz
Are you running 64-bit?

[Frank Munoz]

hmm...

yes i am.
Forgot about that-

[dAnceguy117]

Originally Posted by dragon890x

These quotes are killing me.

haha, right? I wish vbulletin had a visual tool for quote dissection. lol.

Originally Posted by dragon890x

Nope, [using AV software] can't hurt if your concern for obtaining viruses are greater than your computer's performance.

good point. I'm trying to focus on the average user here. I believe the average user has hardware which can very, very easily handle the user's computing tasks. I see one constantly running process as a small price to pay for what could be an incredible convenience.

Originally Posted by dragon890x

Opening or closing a port only does one of two things, opens or closes a port. It doesn't open or close other ports.

very true. power users actually have a lot of control, regardless of their OS.

Originally Posted by dragon890x

When you close a port to fix a problem, you fix the problem. When you patch your system to fit the latest and greatest security model, you become one of the many millions of users who are running the same security. You put yourself on the target for those who develop viruses, aiming to hit a wider audience. You did nothing to fix a problem, you are entrusting Microsoft to fix it instead.

I disagree with part of your reasoning here. yes, having the most recent updates from microsoft makes your system files and settings identical to millions of others out there, and malware developers will work to break these configurations. but if you lag behind in updating, or if you neglect updating at all, older malware which has already been propogated can infect your machine. an older system configuration could have fewer vulnerabilities than a newer one, but the old configuration's vulnerabilities have probably been exploited already.

Originally Posted by dragon890x

My point, putting complete trust into Windows Security Updates doesn't save you from anything. Your protection will be short lived, if it even provides you protection. It doesn't compare to taking manual control of your network's ports or machines. The majority of the problems out there can be stopped by simply adjusting a few settings and keeping a keen eye out for suspicious files and activity.

I still think that Windows updates are a necessity for most people who run Microsoft operating systems. to assume that these updates make a system completely invincible would be incredibly foolish. however, completely distrusting or disregarding updates from your own software vendor might be equally silly.

Originally Posted by dragon890x

Even network administrators have to watch out for updates. Some updates change settings that could bring down a network, or even break a machine's partition (which has happened to me before I had much experience). This is why you should never update a live server's OS without testing the updates before hand. Updating has just as much risk as not updating.

totally, totally agreed. this issue warrants a completely separate conversation.

Originally Posted by dragon890x

I still think that this claim is wrong.

in about 1.5 years, microsoft will stop releasing any security updates for windows XP. many systems connected to the internet will still run XP with those final system configurations. any vulnerabilities left in those configurations will exist forever (unless patched by a third party). malware developers will target these systems, because all of the systems will be vulnerable to the same type of attack. (I could see a pretty wicked DDoS scheme lined up as a result.)

even if you're a well-versed and vigilant user, keeping your system clean will be a hell of a lot of work. if you choose to go that route, I wish you luck.

[dragon890x]

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117

I wish you luck.

Thanks, I wish you the same.

Also, I believe that I understand where you're coming from. I think it's best to end our discussion on this note, what ever works for you is the best option.

[dAnceguy117]

for sure. actually, after rereading my posts, I can see how I might sound like I'm blowing things out of proportion. in general, savvy home users don't really have that much to be afraid of.

I just like rambling about computer things. anyone wanna talk about stuff in the Bits and Bytes board? it seems lonely