Widespread Malware Attacks Target Windows 7, Vista SP1 and XP SP3 Vuln

[franzon]

reboot servers that are in a production environment?

without a patch your production environment may be destroyed by an exploit!

[profets]

without a patch your production environment may be destroyed by an exploit!

haha of course they will.. cause like most system admins we keep open internet access to all production servers

[hagjohn]

very often, the exploits come out within few hours after the patch is released on Windows Update... oh yeah let your mission critical machine to be exploited because it's mission critical... while your administrator is still testing the patches (which are already tested by Microsoft) you're pwned!

there have been multiple occasions where testing was garbage (hasn't happened lately) and updates have crashed servers. It's always better to have a system you can test on to be sure if your mission critical. Home users should always have updates on.

[Ci7]

funny update not only break servers side .... the client side too from two week ago on of the computer in my house goes into installing update loop , luckly i got earlier point and revert back ... problem solved

now imagine something like that happen for a server , it would be a waste of time and money for enterprises

[scrtsqurrl]

Why do people invest so much money in Windows Servers when they are so full of security holes then? Go with Novell's SLES or RHES?

On the desktop PC side of the fence, why are people turning off WU's? Do they really think Microsoft is stealing their bits? :p

[Hum]

I thought Ballmer said that Vista was secure without Antivirus / more secure by design. More secure than what?!

Seems as leaky as Windows XP and all the previous versions.

And just what were you expecting ? :laugh:

[joeblogg]

No excuse but laziness, it was patched more than a month ago.

regardless of OS, clueless people need to leave the auto-updater on.

+4

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I thought Ballmer said that Vista was secure without Antivirus / more secure by design. More secure than what?!

Seems as leaky as Windows XP and all the previous versions.

How did you miss the fact that this vulnerability is rated as Critical on Windows XP, but only "Important" on Vista due to its improved security measures?

Besides, if you installed the patch, then an AntiVirus package would have bought you nothing.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

I thought Ballmer said that Vista was secure without Antivirus / more secure by design. More secure than what?!

Seems as leaky as Windows XP and all the previous versions.

I think Ballmer withdrew that statement or clarified it.

[hynesy]

Grr, I get sick of people going on and on about how insecure Vista is, it is very secure, perhaps more secure then OS X and Linux Distros if I remember the research I read some time ago correctly. The fact of the matter is Windows is on a very large number of machines. Hypothetically speaking if you were writing a virus would you right it for an OS group that owns like 90% (correct me if I'm wrong (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8)) of the market like windows or for OS X at like 8.5% or Linux at .7%? Doesn't matter how secure an OS is, if it is the target of pretty much 100% of malware then its going to seem inherently insecure despite how secure/insecure it may really be. Also, a lot of the blame rests with ignorant users randomly accepting UAC prompts, I know the number of prompts created and can a boy who cried wolf scenario but thats just the price we pay for our interconnected lives.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Grr, I get sick of people going on and on about how insecure Vista is, it is very secure, perhaps more secure then OS X and Linux Distros if I remember the research I read some time ago correctly. The fact of the matter is Windows is on a very large number of machines. Hypothetically speaking if you were writing a virus would you right it for an OS group that owns like 90% (correct me if I'm wrong (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8)) of the market like windows or for OS X at like 8.5% or Linux at .7%? Doesn't matter how secure an OS is, if it is the target of pretty much 100% of malware then its going to seem inherently insecure despite how secure/insecure it may really be. Also, a lot of the blame rests with ignorant users randomly accepting UAC prompts, I know the number of prompts created and can a boy who cried wolf scenario but thats just the price we pay for our interconnected lives.

It may not be as secure as Linux is but I have no problems with it. The UAC prompting can be controlled and from what I have seen is less obtrusive in SP2. I would not however run it without an AV program.