On 19/01/2022 15:19, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> I'll add my "general principles" advice to theirs, and also mention
> that there is new malware that hits the streets every day. A good
> security program will soon be able to catch it, but no program is so
> good that it catches something new as soon as it comes out. So we are
> all always vulnerable to the newest threats.

But that's true of all OSs, both current and no longer supported ones.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/01/2022 15:39, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:08:47 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 19/01/2022 12:40, mechanic wrote:
>>>
>>> Strange that you are keen to keep anti-virus s/w up to date, but
>>> happy to use an OS that's five or six versions behind current
>>> releases!
>>
>> An old OS works just as well as a new one, possibly better.
>
> That may sometimes be true, but far from always, Newer ones normally
> have several improvements.

That depends on whether you actually consider them to *be* actual
improvements, often they're just re-arranging the furniture to make the
room look different and 'new'.

>> The only
>> questions are whether ...
>>
>> + It can be kept secure, and as long as AV software can run on it, that
>> should be possible.
>
> Yes, so that's not an issue.
>
>> + Other hardware such as printers, scanners, mobile-phones, etc, can
>> connect to it. In the end, that is the usually killer, as we've already
>> seen with IDE HDs.
>
> Yes, that's often an issue. Even if it isn't when the new operating
> system is released, it may become one later on when new hardware is
> released that you need or crave, but won't run on your old operating
> system.
>
> The same is true when new software is released. It may not run on your
> old operating system.
>
> Some people can run an old operating system forever, but many others
> can't.

Yes.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 08:19:56, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 12:01:20 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[]
>>I repeat the question, though: do you know of any specific exploit (that
>>up-to-date AV won't help with), or are you (and Ant) just giving the
>>advice on general principles?
>
>I'll add my "general principles" advice to theirs, and also mention
>that there is new malware that hits the streets every day. A good
>security program will soon be able to catch it, but no program is so
>good that it catches something new as soon as it comes out. So we are
>all always vulnerable to the newest threats.

And is such new malware any more likely to affect an old OS (with valid
AV) than a new one?

But don't bother: I've read your next post, and we have different
philosophies. Both are OK.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur". ("Anything is more impressive if
you say it in Latin")

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 08:34:00, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:05:49 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[]
>>Not that strange! Keeping AV up-to-date requires minimal effort;
>
>
>I agree.
>
>
>>changing OS is a fairly major upheaval in itself
>
>
>Not to me--not unless you do a clean installation.
>
As another as said, sometimes necessary.

>
>> (involving installing
>>the OS,
>
>
>Sometimes major, sometimes very easy. Upgrading from 10 to 11, for
>example was very easy (at least for me).
>
I couldn't do 7 to 11 - my hardware had a full page of fails when I
tried the checker for fun! And I don't see anything about 10 that I
actually want.
>
>
>> installing all software,
>
>Not if you do an up grader rather than clean installation. There was a
>time when a clean installation was much better, but those days are
>long gone by. I always do upgrades.

Interesting; I think there are a lot who'd say upgrading is still likely
to give problems, some you won't discover 'til much later. (Academic in
my case.)
>
>The only time I recommend against upgrading is if you are having a
>problem.
>
>
>
>> updating both with whatever updates
>>each need
>
>
>For Windows, not an issue unless you wait a long time before
>upgrading. For programs, not an issue if you've kept up with the
>latest releases, or want to continue using an old version for some
>reason.
>
Keeping up usually involves cost at some point: most software companies,
perfectly understandably, don't provide free upgrades for ever.
>
>>[granted may not be so bad if you use a recent W10 for the
>>install], and then reconfiguring both OS and software to how you like
>>them),
>
>
>Yes, for the operating system, usually. And to me, that's the biggest
>effort.

At upgrade point, yes. You've been expending small amounts of effort
over a long time to stay "current". You may consider that acceptable
effort, or even enjoy it; I used to more than I do now.
>
>However, if you don't let several versions go by before you upgrade,
>it usually isn't that much of an effort.
>
You've been expending minor effort almost continuously. See above i. e.
you may not notice or even enjoy).
>
>For programs, not an issue if you've kept up with the latest releases.
>
(Same comment.)
>
>> not to mention learning how the new version
>
>
>Sometimes an issue, but not always. Again, don't let several versions
>go by before you upgrade.
>
>
>> (s - the software's
>>probably different too, in some cases)
>
>
>
>For programs, not an issue if you've kept up with the latest releases.
>
>
>> work, where different. AV is
>>mostly self-updating (like W10 is).
>
>
>Each to his own, of course, but I almost always quickly upgrade to the
>newest version of Windows. Yes, there's some effort, but seldom is
>there a lot.

Basically, just different philosophies. Continuous minor effort, or
occasional major. Both have their advantages and disadvantages - and I
think we're both happy with the one we've chosen (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur". ("Anything is more impressive if
you say it in Latin")

On 19.01.22 13:40, mechanic wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:05:58 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>>> Probably. Do use updated security prootections in them if possible. Even
>>> better, keep W7 off the Internet.
>>
>> Hmm. I've seen implications of that sort re XP for some time, but that's
>> the first time I've seen it said for 7; inevitable that someone would
>> sooner or later, though. (And presumably it'll happen with 10 after
>> EOS.)
>>
>> Do you know of any specific hole in 7 that (obviously) remains
>> unpatched, and which having an up-to-date AV won't protect against, or
>> are you just giving that advice on better-safe-than-sorry basis?
>
> Strange that you are keen to keep anti-virus s/w up to date, but
> happy to use an OS that's five or six versions behind current
> releases!
>
My 16 year old XP PRO likely wont execute new viri, they
try to attack new computers, and the old machine will not
understand the latest codes.
The only software damaging my computer was AVAST, slowing
my machine to pre-dos speed.
Running the last 4 years without scanner, but with a solid backup copy.

On 19 Jan 2022 13:12:30 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> He is "keen to keep anti-virus s/w up to date" *because* he's using a
> version which is *out of support*. It doesn't matter how much 'behind'
> "current releases" that is. And FYI, he's one or at most two
> versions behind current in-support versions.
>
> And FYI, if he's "five or six versions behind current releases", I'm
> three/four to four/five versions 'behind', but still in-support for
> another two years.

I see you believe that all the vulnerabilities discovered in Windows
for the last four or five releases must now have been fixed. Never
mind the performance issues identified over the same time. You also
seem to believe that a fully updated win7 system is as good as the
latest win10 version.

I'm touched, really, that you have such faith in MSFT, and that they
can keep so many versions fully updated all at the same time, and
that they are all equal in avoiding malware issues. Others may be
more cautious.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 10:00:57, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>Not correct. I moved the old Windows 10 installation from the old box
>to the new one. I did not clean install Windows 10. I also didn't do a
>clean installation of 11; I upgraded to it from 10.
[]
>Not correct. Buy a new box, transfer your 10 installation from the old
>box to the new one, then do an upgrade. That's exactly what I did, and
>it went very well, with no problems.

Do you have a retail version? I was under the impression that the
authorisation/activation/whatever-the-word-is didn't take kindly to
having a complete body transplant.

Even if you do have a retail one (or the activation? servers have
stopped caring), you presumably have to revert all drivers (e. g. video)
to the basic minimumum, then (find and) add all the new ones for your
new box.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur". ("Anything is more impressive if
you say it in Latin")

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 19:38:14, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>On 19 Jan 2022 13:12:30 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>> He is "keen to keep anti-virus s/w up to date" *because* he's using a
>> version which is *out of support*. It doesn't matter how much 'behind'
>> "current releases" that is. And FYI, he's one or at most two
>> versions behind current in-support versions.
>>
>> And FYI, if he's "five or six versions behind current releases", I'm
>> three/four to four/five versions 'behind', but still in-support for
>> another two years.
>
>I see you believe that all the vulnerabilities discovered in Windows
>for the last four or five releases must now have been fixed. Never

I don't think he said that (-:

>mind the performance issues identified over the same time. You also
>seem to believe that a fully updated win7 system is as good as the
>latest win10 version.

Define "good". Protected against malware? Performance on given hardware?
New functionality vs. new quirks?
>
>I'm touched, really, that you have such faith in MSFT, and that they
>can keep so many versions fully updated all at the same time, and
>that they are all equal in avoiding malware issues. Others may be
>more cautious.

I'm touched that you have such faith in MS that they keep the latest
bleeding-edge version fixed (-:

Let's just agree to disagree - this discussion/argument will otherwise
go on for ever, generating in the end more heat than light. And it isn't
new.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur". ("Anything is more impressive if
you say it in Latin")

On 19/01/2022 19:38, mechanic wrote:
>
> I'm touched, really, that you have such faith in MSFT, and that they
> can keep so many versions fully updated all at the same time, and
> that they are all equal in avoiding malware issues. Others may be
> more cautious.

I'm touched, really, that you have such faith in the newest version of
Windows, just because it's the newest version. Others may be more cautious.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

"Sjouke Burry" wrote:
> My 16 year old XP PRO likely wont execute new viri, they
> try to attack new computers, and the old machine will not
> understand the latest codes.

Not only that but malware will expect to find certain utilities and
DLLs that either don't exist on an old OS like XP or were installable
as an option. An example is Powershell, often used to script exploits,
and the dot-net framework which it relies on. This XP machine I'm
posting from has neither.

Another thing is the huge number of services running and background
network activity going on with say, Win10. This machine has only the
services enabled that I, not Microsoft, want running, and nothing that
will accept unsolicited incomming connections. The only network
activity not directly initiated by me is the occasional time sync.

Up to XP the NT OS was relatively simple and I have a pretty good
understanding of it. Beyond that, the complexity and bloat gets
ridiculous and it's a lot harder to get proper control of it.

> The only software damaging my computer was AVAST, slowing
> my machine to pre-dos speed.

The last time I used AV was in the DOS/Win3 days.

> Running the last 4 years without scanner, but with a solid backup copy.

That's the key - good backup.

Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2022 16:16:20 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:05:49 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> >> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 12:40:48, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote
> >> >(my responses usually follow points raised):
> >> >>On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:05:58 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>>Probably. Do use updated security prootections in them if possible. Even
> >> >>>>better, keep W7 off the Internet.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hmm. I've seen implications of that sort re XP for some time, but that's
> >> >>> the first time I've seen it said for 7; inevitable that someone would
> >> >>> sooner or later, though. (And presumably it'll happen with 10 after
> >> >>> EOS.)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Do you know of any specific hole in 7 that (obviously) remains
> >> >>> unpatched, and which having an up-to-date AV won't protect against, or
> >> >>> are you just giving that advice on better-safe-than-sorry basis?
> >> >>
> >> >>Strange that you are keen to keep anti-virus s/w up to date, but
> >> >>happy to use an OS that's five or six versions behind current
> >> >>releases!
> >> >
> >> >Not that strange! Keeping AV up-to-date requires minimal effort;
> >>
> >> I agree.
> >>
> >> >changing OS is a fairly major upheaval in itself
> >>
> >> Not to me--not unless you do a clean installation.
> >
> > I'm not John, but I can imagine (many) cases where you *have* to a
> >clean installation, because you need a new computer/mother-board,
> >because the new OS will not run on the old hardware.
>
>
> Yes, there are such case. However to most people , a new computer
> means a new OEM computer and it therefore almost always comes with the
> latest version preinstalled.

That's not the point. The point is - as John explained - after a clean
installation (or pre-installation) you still have to do all the other
work John mentioned (install and re-configure all your other software,
restore your data, etc.). *That* is the biggest amount of work. And
Windows offers zero help with that migration. Only expensive payware
will do part - but by no means all - of that job.

> >> > (involving installing the OS,
> >>
> >> Sometimes major, sometimes very easy. Upgrading from 10 to 11, for
> >> example was very easy (at least for me).
> >
> > Look at your own situation: Your Windows 10 to Windows 11 upgrade was
> >easy, because 1) you *did* do a clean (Windows 10) install on your new
> >box
>
> Not correct. I moved the old Windows 10 installation from the old box
> to the new one. I did not clean install Windows 10.

Lucky for you. Moving (I assume make image/restore image) is only
possible if the old and new box are sufficiently similar that Windows
can handle the differences. But that's not a procedure that will always
work. See also John similar response about the drivers aspect (and the
licensing aspect). And let's see what Paul has to say about the general
feasibility of that approach.

Bottom line: Your situation is the exception: Sufficiently similar
hardware and probably/hopefully a retail license.

["Duh!" and more of the same deleted.]

mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2022 13:12:30 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > He is "keen to keep anti-virus s/w up to date" *because* he's using a
> > version which is *out of support*. It doesn't matter how much 'behind'
> > "current releases" that is. And FYI, he's one or at most two
> > versions behind current in-support versions.
> >
> > And FYI, if he's "five or six versions behind current releases", I'm
> > three/four to four/five versions 'behind', but still in-support for
> > another two years.
>
> I see you believe that all the vulnerabilities discovered in Windows
> for the last four or five releases must now have been fixed.

Sorry, doesn't compute.

> Never
> mind the performance issues identified over the same time.

On same hardware, Windows 7 is one of the fastest 'home' versions
ever, except probably for XP.

> You also
> seem to believe that a fully updated win7 system is as good as the
> latest win10 version.

No I don't think win7 is as good as the latest win10 version. I think
it's better. (Not quite a) :-)

FYI, I don't use Windows 7, never have. What I do run is mentioned
elsewhere in this thread and shown in my headers (needs the ssecret
decoder ring).

> I'm touched, really, that you have such faith in MSFT, and that they
> can keep so many versions fully updated all at the same time, and
> that they are all equal in avoiding malware issues. Others may be
> more cautious.

The basic idea of NetNews/Usenet is that a response somewhat applies
to the text you're responding to.

Moral: Lighten up.

P.S. What are you doing in a Windows 7 group if you dislike it so much
and adore Windows 10 so much?

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 19:47:56 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 10:00:57, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>(my responses usually follow points raised):
>[]
>>Not correct. I moved the old Windows 10 installation from the old box
>>to the new one. I did not clean install Windows 10. I also didn't do a
>>clean installation of 11; I upgraded to it from 10.
>[]
>>Not correct. Buy a new box, transfer your 10 installation from the old
>>box to the new one, then do an upgrade. That's exactly what I did, and
>>it went very well, with no problems.
>
>Do you have a retail version?

Yes.

> I was under the impression that the
>authorisation/activation/whatever-the-word-is didn't take kindly to
>having a complete body transplant.

I think that used to be true, but no longer is.

>Even if you do have a retail one (or the activation? servers have
>stopped caring), you presumably have to revert all drivers (e. g. video)
>to the basic minimumum, then (find and) add all the new ones for your
>new box.

There was an issue with only one driver--for a monitor. It was quick
and easy to fix.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 18:38:45 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 08:19:56, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>(my responses usually follow points raised):
>>On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 12:01:20 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>[]
>>>I repeat the question, though: do you know of any specific exploit (that
>>>up-to-date AV won't help with), or are you (and Ant) just giving the
>>>advice on general principles?
>>
>>I'll add my "general principles" advice to theirs, and also mention
>>that there is new malware that hits the streets every day. A good
>>security program will soon be able to catch it, but no program is so
>>good that it catches something new as soon as it comes out. So we are
>>all always vulnerable to the newest threats.
>
>And is such new malware any more likely to affect an old OS (with valid
>AV) than a new one?

No.

>
>But don't bother: I've read your next post, and we have different
>philosophies. Both are OK.

Fine with me. I wasn't trying to talk you into doing what I do.

On 1/19/2022 4:21 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>> On 19 Jan 2022 16:16:20 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:05:49 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 12:40:48, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote
>>>>> (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:05:58 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Probably. Do use updated security prootections in them if possible. Even
>>>>>>>> better, keep W7 off the Internet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm. I've seen implications of that sort re XP for some time, but that's
>>>>>>> the first time I've seen it said for 7; inevitable that someone would
>>>>>>> sooner or later, though. (And presumably it'll happen with 10 after
>>>>>>> EOS.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you know of any specific hole in 7 that (obviously) remains
>>>>>>> unpatched, and which having an up-to-date AV won't protect against, or
>>>>>>> are you just giving that advice on better-safe-than-sorry basis?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Strange that you are keen to keep anti-virus s/w up to date, but
>>>>>> happy to use an OS that's five or six versions behind current
>>>>>> releases!
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that strange! Keeping AV up-to-date requires minimal effort;
>>>>
>>>> I agree.
>>>>
>>>>> changing OS is a fairly major upheaval in itself
>>>>
>>>> Not to me--not unless you do a clean installation.
>>>
>>> I'm not John, but I can imagine (many) cases where you *have* to a
>>> clean installation, because you need a new computer/mother-board,
>>> because the new OS will not run on the old hardware.
>>
>>
>> Yes, there are such case. However to most people , a new computer
>> means a new OEM computer and it therefore almost always comes with the
>> latest version preinstalled.
>
> That's not the point. The point is - as John explained - after a clean
> installation (or pre-installation) you still have to do all the other
> work John mentioned (install and re-configure all your other software,
> restore your data, etc.). *That* is the biggest amount of work. And
> Windows offers zero help with that migration. Only expensive payware
> will do part - but by no means all - of that job.
>
>>>>> (involving installing the OS,
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes major, sometimes very easy. Upgrading from 10 to 11, for
>>>> example was very easy (at least for me).
>>>
>>> Look at your own situation: Your Windows 10 to Windows 11 upgrade was
>>> easy, because 1) you *did* do a clean (Windows 10) install on your new
>>> box
>>
>> Not correct. I moved the old Windows 10 installation from the old box
>> to the new one. I did not clean install Windows 10.
>
> Lucky for you. Moving (I assume make image/restore image) is only
> possible if the old and new box are sufficiently similar that Windows
> can handle the differences. But that's not a procedure that will always
> work. See also John similar response about the drivers aspect (and the
> licensing aspect). And let's see what Paul has to say about the general
> feasibility of that approach.
>
> Bottom line: Your situation is the exception: Sufficiently similar
> hardware and probably/hopefully a retail license.

Modern windows "tolerates" hardware box changes better.

But I don't think the activation model has changed.

The grace period behavior is different. If you think the
move from one box to another "worked", you would try

slmgr /dlv

and check the activation status. It's possible to move
Windows, and have it rediscover all the hardware OK. But when it
does the hardware hash, checks into the Microsoft server, the
"new empty" machine will have no entry. And no license key to
reference in some way.

Retail was supposed to be different, in that moving the OS
could in principle activate on the new machine. But there might
be at least some "ceremony", such as the telephone keypad method,
as a means to determine the user really did want to move the
activation to another machine.

No scheme should really allow license amplification, even in 2022.

It's just the enforcement consists of "disabling Personalization",
so unless you check your status, you might not know. If a machine
stays powered enough, and does at least one Windows Update call,
it will usually put a message in the desktop wallpaper to the
effect the machine is not activated.

Older versions of the OS, are increasingly brittle in regard
to moves of this sort.

Macrium Reflect claims to have a capability to "move" a restore, but
this would be mainly adding drivers I would guess. Software of that
type does not normally "massage" licenses or anything of the sort,
or they'd get added to Windows Defender "hackware" software definition
if they did :-) Like Nirsoft Produkey (a utility that just displays the
license key, is flagged by Windows Defender).

And when it comes to keys on Win10, if your key ends in "3V66T" (Pro),
that's a default key used for upgrades from Win7/Win8.1. If you used
a "real" key to activate, then a license key display utility will
display your "real" key. If you did an upgrade strategy, then
the filler key is used. And "3v66t" should not activate any other
copies of the OS. If you're moving an OS, and "it didn't work" in
the activation sense, you might want to review what actual key
the chain started with (a Win7 key).

Fillers (would be "no good" for moving an OS)

VK7JG-NPHTM-C97JM-9MPGT-3V66T (Windows 10 Professional)
YTMG3-N6DKC-DKB77-7M9GH-8HVX7 (Windows 10 Home - multi language)
BT79Q-G7N6G-PGBYW-4YWX6-6F4BT (Windows 10 Home - single language)

Paul

On 1/19/2022 3:10 PM, Java Jive wrote:
> On 19/01/2022 19:38, mechanic wrote:
>>
>> I'm touched, really, that you have such faith in MSFT, and that they
>> can keep so many versions fully updated all at the same time, and
>> that they are all equal in avoiding malware issues. Others may be
>> more cautious.
>
> I'm touched, really, that you have such faith in the newest version of Windows, just because it's the newest version.  Others may be more cautious.
>

The OS doesn't have any significant heuristic detection.
Only a few AVs had some. AV-Comparative reports give some
idea whether a given AV has some.

That's a means of offering protection to customers, for
"new" malware, and that's the malware you have to be most
concerned about. In a World Wide confrontation, you would
expect your computer room to be wiped out by nation-state
quality malware (web browser entry is good enough as an
attack surface).

Obviously, operating totally unprotected (not even a ClamAV
class method), could leave you vulnerable to some older
malware signatures. You know from your own track record,
how good you are at "missing" some of that. If you had
Sality on one machine, and a second machine had No AV,
then the second machine could get Sality (a destructive malware).
Malware with worm code, is good for that.

The OS code base, there is lots of code from older OSes
in a new OS. That's where dialog support comes from,
for things like the sysdm.cpl control panel. That would be
a sampling of old code. When people make Start8, Start10,
or other menu addons, the code is already in the OS to help
support those efforts.

I bet the FAT32 driver, looks roughly similar to how
it looked 25 years ago. The Ridgecrop formatter has some
of that Microsoft provided code in it, but I don't know
what code release may have included a copy. NTFS is likely
to be better covered. And, the NTFS code is definitely
not exactly the same on Windows 10 or Windows 11 (because
of the damage to $MFTMIRR, $BITMAP, messing with Extended Attributes,
New Compression, all while claiming the file system version
is still Version 3.1). NTFS even includes cluster size
choices that are not backward compatible with the other
OSes in your computer room (don't use those).

Safe Hex is what you're using, with any of the OSes, and
that's a pretty thin protection. But for many people, they
seem to be happy with that. Not everyone has the skills
to avoid falling in the deep fat fryer though.

There are people on USENET, who constantly click the wrong
things. and the history of phishing attacks, is "they work".
The person on defense is a sitting duck. One poster in another
group, got ransomware, and the person sending the email knew he
owned a domain, so "sending a domain renewal notice" was a
perfectly crafted trap. Wiped out all the computers on the LAN
at the time. Red dialog screen with bitcoin payment details. It
took three or four months to fix (no backups!).

No matter what you're running, there is no reason to be smug.

The nation-state actors have exploits for everything.

Paul

On 1/19/2022 3:10 PM, Apd wrote:
> "Sjouke Burry" wrote:

>> Running the last 4 years without scanner, but with a solid backup copy.
>
> That's the key - good backup.

I recommend keeping a BIOS flash file for each machine,
even if it re-installs the current version. With UEFI at least,
I could see an exploit attempting to disable the machine,
by messing up the BIOS EEPROM contents.

A backup for the disk, is just one subsystem. It would be good
to have a video card BIOS backup too, but those aren't so easy to
come by. I reflashed my ATI9800 for example, back in the day,
using an image someone else made. I don't think there is much
protection there. (The image needs to match the VRAM details,
like the video card file I used was for "CAS3 RAM". Worked a treat.
The video card firmware, sets up the memory controller for the VRAM.)

There are other forms of mischief besides your hard drive content.

There is a difference between "ransom" malwares and "destructive"
malwares. And the latter are not used a lot today. The current
situation in Ukraine being an example that the craft has not
been lost.

Paul

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 19/01/2022 12:40, mechanic wrote:
> >
> > Strange that you are keen to keep anti-virus s/w up to date, but
> > happy to use an OS that's five or six versions behind current
> > releases!

> An old OS works just as well as a new one, possibly better. The only
> questions are whether ...

> + It can be kept secure, and as long as AV software can run on it, that
> should be possible.

> + Other hardware such as printers, scanners, mobile-phones, etc, can
> connect to it. In the end, that is the usually killer, as we've already
> seen with IDE HDs.

I have had issues with old hardwares with newer OSes due to lack of
drivers like old USB HP printers too. HP seems to have dumped USB
drivers and make us use network printer which I did not want and isn't
reliable. :(
--
Dang humans, spammers, issues, illnesses, bodies, life, medias, etc. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > mind the performance issues identified over the same time.

> On same hardware, Windows 7 is one of the fastest 'home' versions
> ever, except probably for XP.

What about 2K? ;)

> > seem to believe that a fully updated win7 system is as good as the
> > latest win10 version.

> No I don't think win7 is as good as the latest win10 version. I think
> it's better. (Not quite a) :-)

2K is the best of all Windows. :-P
--
Dang humans, spammers, issues, illnesses, bodies, life, medias, etc. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

In message <YyNGrtByyF6hFw+B@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> writes
>On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 08:34:00, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>(my responses usually follow points raised):
<snip>
>>
>>Sometimes major, sometimes very easy. Upgrading from 10 to 11, for
>>example was very easy (at least for me).
>>
>I couldn't do 7 to 11 - my hardware had a full page of fails when I
>tried the checker for fun! And I don't see anything about 10 that I
>actually want.

If I'm right in thinking that yours is a 32-bit machine, that's probably
the main reason why an upgrade to 11 is impossible. The long-term worry
must be that - once the great majority of people are on Windows 11,
making 32-bit machines rare - software manufacturers (including AV) will
eventually stop updating their 32-bit versions.

>>
>>
>>> installing all software,
>>
>>Not if you do an up grader rather than clean installation. There was a
>>time when a clean installation was much better, but those days are
>>long gone by. I always do upgrades.
>
>Interesting; I think there are a lot who'd say upgrading is still
>likely to give problems, some you won't discover 'til much later.
>(Academic in my case.)
<snip>

I reluctantly did an upgrade from 7 to 10 on my 2014 32-bit machine in
February 2019, once Microsoft had ceased issuing security updates for
Windows 7, and it was much more pain-free than I had expected from what
I had read here. I don't recall any program refusing to run afterwards.
I needed to tell Windows that I was using Turnpike as my email
application (and that might have necessitated a re-installation of TP -
I can't recall), and IIRC that was about it. I also found that Windows
10 was far less radically different from 7 than I had been expecting, so
long as I kept all the stuff like Cortana that I didn't want switched
off.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On 20/01/2022 10:39, John Hall wrote:
>
> I reluctantly did an upgrade from 7 to 10 on my 2014 32-bit machine in
> February 2019, once Microsoft had ceased issuing security updates for
> Windows 7

Surely I'm not the only person still receiving security updates for W7,
on two different machines? The latest was just this morning!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 20/01/2022 05:34, Paul wrote:
>
> No matter what you're running, there is no reason to be smug.
>
> The nation-state actors have exploits for everything.

Yes, as the Stuxnet attack on Iran's nuclear capabilities, particularly
its centrifuges for refining nuclear fuel, proved.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19 Jan 2022 21:37:38 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote:
>> On 19 Jan 2022 13:12:30 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>>> He is "keen to keep anti-virus s/w up to date" *because* he's using a
>>> version which is *out of support*. It doesn't matter how much 'behind'
>>> "current releases" that is. And FYI, he's one or at most two
>>> versions behind current in-support versions.
>>>
>>> And FYI, if he's "five or six versions behind current releases", I'm
>>> three/four to four/five versions 'behind', but still in-support for
>>> another two years.
>>
>> I see you believe that all the vulnerabilities discovered in Windows
>> for the last four or five releases must now have been fixed.
>
> Sorry, doesn't compute.

It's the logic of your position. Do you not believe it?

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 18:47:14 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> Basically, just different philosophies. Continuous minor effort, or
> occasional major. Both have their advantages and disadvantages - and I
> think we're both happy with the one we've chosen (-:

OK, as long as you don't parade one 'philosophy' as the right one.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 23:57:28 -0600, Ant wrote:

> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 19/01/2022 12:40, mechanic wrote:
>>>
>>> Strange that you are keen to keep anti-virus s/w up to date, but
>>> happy to use an OS that's five or six versions behind current
>>> releases!
>
>> An old OS works just as well as a new one, possibly better. The only
>> questions are whether ...
>
>> + It can be kept secure, and as long as AV software can run on it, that
>> should be possible.

Latest Win versions have improvements that anti-virus software can't
replicate - Defender is the obvious example. Now recognised as among
the best anti-virus protection, and available to all users right out
of the box.