53 replies to this topic 2 votes

[Dot Matrix]

warwagon, on 11 June 2012 - 01:21, said:

Get a clue you guys. It's one of the best security podcasts on the internet. Who cares if he is running XP and Firefox 3.6 (By the way he did upgrade firefox). They are all still receiving security updates. It's just his choice. Just because he chooses to do so doesn't make him any less of a security expert.

No. Firefox 3.6 went extinct back in April.

[warwagon]

Dot Matrix, on 11 June 2012 - 02:44, said:

No. Firefox 3.6 went extinct back in April.

Which is why he has moved to a newer version.

[UXGaurav]

Wrong place to ask the question. The fanboys will tell you unbelievable stories.

[Dot Matrix]

xpclient, on 11 June 2012 - 03:07, said:

Wrong place to ask the question. The fanboys will tell you unbelievable stories.

We all know you love XP, but it's time to take off those XP-colored glasses, even the most hardened Windows users will tell you that XP was a security nightmare, and in some ways, still is.

[gawicks]

warwagon, on 10 June 2012 - 01:34, said:

But they can't really change much without breaking all of the legacy stuff. So they're limited in what they're able to do. And you could argue that they're sort of running out of things to do at this point. So first of all, looking back at all the patches we've discussed in the last year, nothing is XP only. I can't think of anything that only affected XP.

I disagree most of the security features added to Vista such as DEP / UAC broke a lot of software ; mostly the badly written software which made assumptions about things like Admin access and executing out of the data region . and Microsoft had to do a lot of plumbing to get these older software to work . Compatibility headaches were a major issue in Vista surely this guy is ignoring the fact that Microsoft was indeed willing to break compatibility over security .

[UXGaurav]

Dot Matrix, on 11 June 2012 - 03:26, said:

We all know you love XP, but it's time to take off those XP-colored glasses, even the most hardened Windows users will tell you that XP was a security nightmare, and in some ways, still is.

Classic FUD you are trying to spread here. XP was insecure before Service Pack 2. After SP2, it's secure enough. Vista/7 is certainly more secure, no doubt about that, ASLR, UAC, UIPI, outgoing firewall, and many more enhancements but for folks who're know their stuff and are aware of what they're doing XP is secure enough. We all know you love <insert latest Windows OS here>, but it's time to take off those <latest OS>-colored glasses.

[Skyfrog]

xpclient, on 11 June 2012 - 03:07, said:

Wrong place to ask the question. The fanboys will tell you unbelievable stories.

Coming from someone named XPClient. The irony...

[Relativity_17]

Skyfrog, on 11 June 2012 - 04:33, said:

Coming from someone named XPClient. The irony...

Calling people fanboys increases your argument strength by three, you know.

[Dot Matrix]

xpclient, on 11 June 2012 - 04:20, said:

Classic FUD you are trying to spread here. XP was insecure before Service Pack 2. After SP2, it's secure enough. Vista/7 is certainly more secure, no doubt about that, ASLR, UAC, UIPI, outgoing firewall, and many more enhancements but for folks who're know their stuff and are aware of what they're doing XP is secure enough. We all know you love <insert latest Windows OS here>, but it's time to take off those <latest OS>-colored glasses.

SP2 was far from "enough", if I recall correctly, XP stil suffered greatly even after SP2 was released. Conficker comes to mind. In this da and age, "secure" enough", just isn't "good enough".