|
Post by gadreel on Aug 1, 2017 23:15:27 GMT
Security updates make sense because they address the discovered vulnerabilities of a piece of software that have been uncovered after their release, no one claims that a computer is magically secure after an update, just that the known vulnerabilities have been patched. This is a prime example of why a little knowledge is dangerous. for emphasis, Bingo!! That's why it is simple foolishness to bother with them. I've had a somewhat "public" life since I started debating for my school way back in high school. My life is somewhat an "open" book. I do not avoid crowds. No one who needs to avoid crowds can be a good journalist. I address crowds, much smaller ones lately, but stay tuned. I never got as famous as regular TV and radio people, but I have appeared on TV and radio and in newspapers, real ones not just Examiner. When you appear like that you can become a target. People would like to mess you over. They do try. I don't care. In the end they learn it does them no good. Then there is a new bus load of them about every two weeks. Then those find out I can't be bothered, and so on.
I know what keeps me secure, God does. Why don't people steal my identity? Because they fear getting caught being "bad" people. Computers have very little to do with it. The only people who try are the people who think they can make some case that I deserve the treatment they want to deal me. I generally make better cases then they anticipated.
I understand security very well including computer security. I know how to use encryption keys. If you take the current events quiz on my website and look at the source page you'll see that the answers are there, but they're encrypted. I did it that way because it's easier than trying to track a client page to page. Have you cracked my encryption method yet? I don't think so. Can someone crack it? Probably, but anyone smart enough to crack it is also smart enough not to mess with me.
I think you just proved my point. You know how to use encryption keys??? Wow, a first year university student can do the same thing. I imagine your rage to be a virulent and effective as the anger of a pet lamb.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2017 23:34:41 GMT
for emphasis, Bingo!! That's why it is simple foolishness to bother with them. I've had a somewhat "public" life since I started debating for my school way back in high school. My life is somewhat an "open" book. I do not avoid crowds. No one who needs to avoid crowds can be a good journalist. I address crowds, much smaller ones lately, but stay tuned. I never got as famous as regular TV and radio people, but I have appeared on TV and radio and in newspapers, real ones not just Examiner. When you appear like that you can become a target. People would like to mess you over. They do try. I don't care. In the end they learn it does them no good. Then there is a new bus load of them about every two weeks. Then those find out I can't be bothered, and so on.
I know what keeps me secure, God does. Why don't people steal my identity? Because they fear getting caught being "bad" people. Computers have very little to do with it. The only people who try are the people who think they can make some case that I deserve the treatment they want to deal me. I generally make better cases than they anticipated.
I understand security very well including computer security. I know how to use encryption keys. If you take the current events quiz on my website and look at the source page you'll see that the answers are there, but they're encrypted. I did it that way because it's easier than trying to track a client page to page. Have you cracked my encryption method yet? I don't think so. Can someone crack it? Probably, but anyone smart enough to crack it is also smart enough not to mess with me.
I think you just proved my point. You know how to use encryption keys??? Wow, a first year university student can do the same thing. I imagine your rage to be a virulent and effective as the anger of a pet lamb. Yeah right. You made your case. Oh wait no! Making cases is what I do. No, you didn't crack my encryption method? How shocked am I?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 1, 2017 23:42:56 GMT
I think you just proved my point. You know how to use encryption keys??? Wow, a first year university student can do the same thing. I imagine your rage to be a virulent and effective as the anger of a pet lamb. Yeah right. You made your case. Oh wait no! Making cases is what I do. No, you didn't crack my encryption method? How shocked am I? I'm sorry, you expect me to crack your encryption 'method' ( i imagine is it simply a key encryption, so not really your method) while I am at work to prove what exactly? That you are correct to not take security updates on your home computer?? You really are a special sort aren't you. But since you are a security whizz, I bet you will be able to crack this encryption right: 8DCA3A319BE65C9C146827D0487E86B59C1CDD28DB29ABC23C10A1645D5BE520C0ECED7CDB88DB7AEA73CFA7C6757DF7E74893E85AD44206900B29E935B0DC52E66396F2E70AE86C5DA925A4FA9CECB1E7C96CF37C14B30A166303B1A5BF3F10527A28AE0DC5DFD63CDC2A9C165578F5C60A864CBDF990FB881255F9D635A6AD30BF93514238700EAA151F04641D2564B00F3B39B93C4169D9EF74DBA40F9CDC4CB27437B82DCD645D528B360ED3E1CC&mac=2E7647C15802ADD22F420A83E6AE9914EADC77C0&expiry=0000015DA0254BB8
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2017 23:55:03 GMT
As usual you have imagined incorrectly and with nothing to stand on. Actually it's more like a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma with tiny pieces of encryption keys sprinkled on top. And no, I don't expect you to even try to crack it. What will you give me if I do?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 1, 2017 23:56:53 GMT
As usual you have imagined incorrectly and with nothing to stand on. Actually it's more like a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma with tiny pieces of encryption keys sprinkled on top. And no, I don't expect you to even try to crack it. What will you give me if I do? if you can crack that I will wire you $250 (NZ)
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 1, 2017 23:57:53 GMT
You are totally incorrect regarding the statement that I quoted. There are considerable reasons to upgrade/update. Any operating system always has security vulnerabilities and bugs when it is first launched. Security upgrades provide the fixes for those vulnerabilities. As a matter of fact one should try to keep his or her systems updated to have less chance of being infected. Firewall should also be optimized as per needs. This is also wrong. I see you believe that security updates make sense. They do not make sense. There is never any time when when you are secure. Or if there is when is that? Obviously you cannot say. Then you have no business saying I'm wrong. If you believe they make any sense then you're not critically analyzing what you're told by the crowd, you're just accepting it regardless how little sense it makes. Why bother with seat belts and air bags? You can't be 100 percent safe anyway. I doubt you do any IT work for a company, but if you do I sure feel sorry for them.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2017 23:58:37 GMT
As usual you have imagined incorrectly and with nothing to stand on. Actually it's more like a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma with tiny pieces of encryption keys sprinkled on top. And no, I don't expect you to even try to crack it. What will you give me if I do? if you can crack that I will wire you $250 (NZ) You go first.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 2, 2017 0:07:18 GMT
I see you believe that security updates make sense. They do not make sense. There is never any time when when you are secure. Or if there is when is that? Obviously you cannot say. Then you have no business saying I'm wrong. If you believe they make any sense then you're not critically analyzing what you're told by the crowd, you're just accepting it regardless how little sense it makes. Why bother with seat belts and air bags? You can't be 100 percent safe anyway. I doubt you do any IT work for a company, but if you do I sure feel sorry for them. I'm sorry but seat belts are a false analogy on the percentage basis alone, but also because they are indeed effective against rocks and trees and faulty brakes. Rocks, trees and faulty brakes do not fear any god. Hackers, even "atheists" fear god, in a manner of speaking anyway since there are no atheists in foxholes. Thank you for your comments, but you probably already know I do not regard all comments equally valuable.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 2, 2017 0:57:33 GMT
if you can crack that I will wire you $250 (NZ) You go first. Yeah that is kinda what I thought, your 'security' encryption has nothing to do with security updates and your refusal to use them, this was simply a red herring to try and dodge your claims. Hint, you won't be able to decrypt that, and if you had some idea about encryption keys, you would know why.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 2, 2017 1:09:07 GMT
Yeah that is kinda what I thought, your 'security' encryption has nothing to do with security updates and your refusal to use them, this was simply a red herring to try and dodge your claims. Hint, you won't be able to decrypt that, and if you had some idea about encryption keys, you would know why. If you're going to spend time at your computer from "work" maybe at least try to use more interesting words. "Tiny pieces of encryption keys sprinkled on top," see what I did there? It's almost poetic. Isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 2, 2017 1:42:25 GMT
Yeah that is kinda what I thought, your 'security' encryption has nothing to do with security updates and your refusal to use them, this was simply a red herring to try and dodge your claims. Hint, you won't be able to decrypt that, and if you had some idea about encryption keys, you would know why. If you're going to spend time at your computer from "work" maybe at least try to use more interesting words. "Tiny pieces of encryption keys sprinkled on top," see what I did there? It's almost poetic. Isn't it? Um no. It's a stupid dodge made by someone who is finding his position increasingly more destroyed with every uninformed post he writes.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 2, 2017 2:32:53 GMT
If you're going to spend time at your computer from "work" maybe at least try to use more interesting words. "Tiny pieces of encryption keys sprinkled on top," see what I did there? It's almost poetic. Isn't it? Um no. It's a stupid dodge made by someone who is finding his position increasingly more destroyed with every uninformed post he writes. Here's the problem. You have an "internal unresolved conflict." That means you oppose yourself without being fully aware of it. You cannot decide whether you want your computer secure or not. Sometimes you think you want it secure so you can use it for banking. Sometimes you think you don't want computers secure because then people might do evil things without getting caught. My feelings about these things are actually similar to yours except that I am fully aware of the conflict and able to resolve it. I put it in God's hands. I don't have to worry about people getting access to my computer because I know God will punish them if they try to do something evil. I believe I explained that to you perfectly well already. But notice that even if you wanted to, you can't access it. Remember me saying I have "credentials" in "forensics"? Things I say can be spot on. I know how to catch people doing evil things. Unlike you I know what a "proof" is. Unlike you I know how to make a case. I watch a lot of Columbo.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 2, 2017 16:13:41 GMT
Um no. It's a stupid dodge made by someone who is finding his position increasingly more destroyed with every uninformed post he writes. Here's the problem. You have an "internal unresolved conflict." That means you oppose yourself without being fully aware of it. You cannot decide whether you want your computer secure or not. Sometimes you think you want it secure so you can use it for banking. Sometimes you think you don't want computers secure because then people might do evil things without getting caught. My feelings about these things are actually similar to yours except that I am fully aware of the conflict and able to resolve it. I put it in God's hands. I don't have to worry about people getting access to my computer because I know God will punish them if they try to do something evil. I believe I explained that to you perfectly well already. But notice that even if you wanted to, you can't access it. Remember me saying I have "credentials" in "forensics"? Things I say can be spot on. I know how to catch people doing evil things. Unlike you I know what a "proof" is. Unlike you I know how to make a case. I watch a lot of Columbo. I think your last 6 words sum up a lot of the things you think.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 3, 2017 0:07:52 GMT
Here's the problem. You have an "internal unresolved conflict." That means you oppose yourself without being fully aware of it. You cannot decide whether you want your computer secure or not. Sometimes you think you want it secure so you can use it for banking. Sometimes you think you don't want computers secure because then people might do evil things without getting caught. My feelings about these things are actually similar to yours except that I am fully aware of the conflict and able to resolve it. I put it in God's hands. I don't have to worry about people getting access to my computer because I know God will punish them if they try to do something evil. I believe I explained that to you perfectly well already. But notice that even if you wanted to, you can't access it. Remember me saying I have "credentials" in "forensics"? Things I say can be spot on. I know how to catch people doing evil things. Unlike you I know what a "proof" is. Unlike you I know how to make a case. I watch a lot of Columbo. I think your last 6 words sum up a lot of the things you think. I'm sorry. I try to watch the new TV and movies, but they're all so vapid. Fortuitously stations show reruns of The Twilight Zone (original) and Alfred Hitchcock (TV series). That helps me recover from trying to watch the new stuff. They also rerun that great detective series Columbo. I should just buy the DVDs, and probably will sometime.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 4, 2017 4:48:41 GMT
Why bother with seat belts and air bags? You can't be 100 percent safe anyway. I doubt you do any IT work for a company, but if you do I sure feel sorry for them. I'm sorry but seat belts are a false analogy on the percentage basis alone, but also because they are indeed effective against rocks and trees and faulty brakes. Rocks, trees and faulty brakes do not fear any god. Hackers, even "atheists" fear god, in a manner of speaking anyway since there are no atheists in foxholes. Thank you for your comments, but you probably already know I do not regard all comments equally valuable. He didn't make any false analogy. I am surprised at your persistence in not understanding a simple thing. Let me make it extremely clear to you. You run Avast anti-virus software whose virus data base was last updated on 2nd August. A new virus hits millions of computers on 3rd August. Avast is quick to include prevention against this virus in its data base on the night of 3rd August. Now if you visit a site infected with such a virus on 4th August then two things are possible. 1) You get hit by the virus when you visit a site infected by this deadly virus and your computer becomes infected because you didn't update your software. 2) You visit the site but your Avast antivirus software recognizes the virus as you had updated its database. In this case your computer won't be infected by the antivirus. That's what update does! In fact it does more things than that. One of the reason people are infected by malware is that they don't keep their system updated. I wonder how you even talk about using Linux with such an uninformed stand regarding the benefits of update. Try to read "release notes" for any update to see what changes it will bring to your computer. I understand that some people want to avoid updates which may crash their systems but you usually get to know what level of updates you are getting from the update provider. Linux Mint for example classifies its updates on scale of 1 to 5. Level 1,2, and 3 are safe updates. Others are optional for those who want to have cutting edge features.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 4, 2017 13:02:50 GMT
I'm sorry but seat belts are a false analogy on the percentage basis alone, but also because they are indeed effective against rocks and trees and faulty brakes. Rocks, trees and faulty brakes do not fear any god. Hackers, even "atheists" fear god, in a manner of speaking anyway since there are no atheists in foxholes. Thank you for your comments, but you probably already know I do not regard all comments equally valuable. He didn't make any false analogy. I am surprised at your persistence in not understanding a simple thing. Let me make it extremely clear to you. You run Avast anti-virus software whose virus data base was last updated on 2nd August. A new virus hits millions of computers on 3rd August. Avast is quick to include prevention against this virus in its data base on the night of 3rd August. Now if you visit a site infected with such a virus on 4th August then two things are possible. 1) You get hit by the virus when you visit a site infected by this deadly virus and your computer becomes infected because you didn't update your software. 2) You visit the site but your Avast antivirus software recognizes the virus as you had updated its database. In this case your computer won't be infected by the antivirus. That's what update does! In fact it does more things than that. One of the reason people are infected by malware is that they don't keep their system updated. I wonder how you even talk about using Linux with such an uninformed stand regarding the benefits of update. Try to read "release notes" for any update to see what changes it will bring to your computer. I understand that some people want to avoid updates which may crash their systems but you usually get to know what level of updates you are getting from the update provider. Linux Mint for example classifies its updates on scale of 1 to 5. Level 1,2, and 3 are safe updates. Others are optional for those who want to have cutting edge features. Yes, it is a false analogy. Seat belts protect against accidents, not deliberate attacks. Of course there are a few automobile accidents that are caused deliberately, for example to make a murder appear like an accident. Now for real numbers though, how many automobile "accidents" are deliberate compared to how many are truly accidental? I would guess the percentage is extremely small. Now how many computer attacks are accidental? How many times has someone (without your help) "accidentally" obtained information about you from your computer? Again that is an insignificant percentage. Therefore seat belts are a solution to a totally different type of problem than computer attacks. That's what "false analogy" means. As I already explained, deliberate attacks are prevented by laws generally, not computer technology. Have you ever visited a restaurant or other business where you gave the person serving you your credit card? What prevents them using that number and information to buy something for themselves without your permission? Card technology? Of course not. People don't steal credit card numbers because they would get caught in the real world, not the cyber world. Fear of the law is almost totally ineffective in preventing accidents. That is to say that where an accident does happen all parties involved were at least trying to do what the law told them to do (at least as they understood it). Fear of the law is almost totally effective against cyber attacks because someone has to deliberately take the very real chance of getting caught. The antivirus story you told is ridiculous. Such software only works against threats it knows. In other words old threats. In other words threats made up by confederates of the people who sold you the antivirus. That's how they "know" the virus in the first place, because they are in on it. There are only two basic types of computer files, data and "program" files. It has been that way since Atari computers. In order for a threat to gain access to your computer it must be in a "program" file or one that "executes" on your computer. For example .exe, .js, .vbs, .ps1 and such files. That's why browsers have an option to disable scripts (like .js). Text files, database files, image and video files cannot execute on their own. Malicious code in data files can never compromise your computer by themselves. They would need the executable file that runs them to contain the actual threat to recognize them and put them to work. For example a corrupted text file (.txt) is totally harmless unless some program that reads it, maybe Notepad.exe, is also otherwise infected with code to recognize the infection in the text file and put it to some use. The notion that hackers can keep "finding" holes in operating systems is absurd. That any holes exist in the first place is almost as absurd, but at least possible. That's why a ten year old CD is safe. All the holes have been found, there are no more. If hackers can access an operating system after all the "flaws" in it have been fixed, if hackers can access a totally secure OS, then you are foolish to waste effort trying to make it more secure. QED. The truth of the matter is that your computer can be very safe, the internet is another story. Remember what I said about executable files being the only kind through which a threat can enter? Well, any browser, no matter which one, is such an executable itself. Browsers can and will spy on you at least. They can even do more if some idiot at the company controls thinks they should. Yes there are idiots at the controls, but there isn't much you can do about that except being careful hiring computer techs. One way to help ensure your browser is not compromising your security is to use a time tested one from the original installation CD, not an "update" from the internet. You might know Google Chrome for Windows likes to update itself. If you use it on Windows XP or Vista it complains that those operating systems are "no longer supported" and it won't "update" anymore for those. I use it anyway as well as Mozilla. The version of Mozilla I use is from a file I saved long ago and it doesn't ask to update from there. That way I can be the more certain it has no unusual access. I use Chrome because it won't update itself anymore (at least not after the initial installation which must be online).
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 4, 2017 13:28:09 GMT
He didn't make any false analogy. I am surprised at your persistence in not understanding a simple thing. Let me make it extremely clear to you. You run Avast anti-virus software whose virus data base was last updated on 2nd August. A new virus hits millions of computers on 3rd August. Avast is quick to include prevention against this virus in its data base on the night of 3rd August. Now if you visit a site infected with such a virus on 4th August then two things are possible. 1) You get hit by the virus when you visit a site infected by this deadly virus and your computer becomes infected because you didn't update your software. 2) You visit the site but your Avast antivirus software recognizes the virus as you had updated its database. In this case your computer won't be infected by the antivirus. That's what update does! In fact it does more things than that. One of the reason people are infected by malware is that they don't keep their system updated. I wonder how you even talk about using Linux with such an uninformed stand regarding the benefits of update. Try to read "release notes" for any update to see what changes it will bring to your computer. I understand that some people want to avoid updates which may crash their systems but you usually get to know what level of updates you are getting from the update provider. Linux Mint for example classifies its updates on scale of 1 to 5. Level 1,2, and 3 are safe updates. Others are optional for those who want to have cutting edge features. Yes, it is a false analogy. Seat belts protect against accidents, not deliberate attacks. Of course there are a few automobile accidents that are caused deliberately, for example to make a murder appear like an accident. Now for real numbers though, how many automobile "accidents" are deliberate compared to how many are truly accidental? I would guess the percentage is extremely small. Now how many computer attacks are accidental? How many times has someone (without your help) "accidentally" obtained information about you from your computer? Again that is an insignificant percentage. Therefore seat belts are a solution to a totally different type of problem than computer attacks. That's what "false analogy" means. As I already explained, deliberate attacks are prevented by laws generally, not computer technology. Have you ever visited a restaurant or other business where you gave the person serving you your credit card? What prevents them using that number and information to buy something for themselves without your permission? Card technology? Of course not. People don't steal credit card numbers because they would get caught in the real world, not the cyber world. Fear of the law is almost totally ineffective in preventing accidents. That is to say that where an accident does happen all parties involved were at least trying to do what the law told them to do (at least as they understood it). Fear of the law is almost totally effective against cyber attacks because someone has to deliberately take the very real chance of getting caught. The antivirus story you told is ridiculous. Such software only works against threats it knows. In other words old threats. In other words threats made up by confederates of the people who sold you the antivirus. That's how they "know" the virus in the first place, because they are in on it. There are only two basic types of computer files, data and "program" files. It has been that way since Atari computers. In order for a threat to gain access to your computer it must be in a "program" file or one that "executes" on your computer. For example .exe, .js, .vbs, .ps1 and such files. That's why browsers have an option to disable scripts (like .js). Text files, database files, image and video files cannot execute on their own. Malicious code in data files can never compromise your computer by themselves. They would need the executable file that runs them to contain the actual threat to recognize them and put them to work. For example a corrupted text file (.txt) is totally harmless unless some program that reads it, maybe Notepad.exe, is also otherwise infected with code to recognize the infection in the text file and put it to some use. The notion that hackers can keep "finding" holes in operating systems is absurd. That any holes exist in the first place is almost as absurd, but at least possible. That's why a ten year old CD is safe. All the holes have been found, there are no more. If hackers can access an operating system after all the "flaws" in it have been fixed, if hackers can access a totally secure OS, then you are foolish to waste effort trying to make it more secure. QED. The truth of the matter is that your computer can be very safe, the internet is another story. Remember what I said about executable files being the only kind through which a threat can enter? Well, any browser, no matter which one, is such an executable itself. Browsers can and will spy on you at least. They can even do more if some idiot at the company controls thinks they should. Yes there are idiots at the controls, but there isn't much you can do about that except being careful hiring computer techs. One way to help ensure your browser is not compromising your security is to use a time tested one from the original installation CD, not an "update" from the internet. You might know Google Chrome for Windows likes to update itself. If you use it on Windows XP or Vista it complains that those operating systems are "no longer supported" and it won't "update" anymore for those. I use it anyway as well as Mozilla. The version of Mozilla I use is from a file I saved long ago and it doesn't ask to update from there. That way I can be the more certain it has no unusual access. I use Chrome because it won't update itself anymore (at least not after the initial installation which must be online). You used so many words to convey nothing. Reality is not what you want it to be. Anti-virus software doesn't only eliminate viruses that it could on the date you install it. It eliminates anything for which its database has been updated. You need to continuously update it. It's not my subjective opinion but an objective fact.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 4, 2017 16:23:49 GMT
Yes, it is a false analogy. Seat belts protect against accidents, not deliberate attacks. Of course there are a few automobile accidents that are caused deliberately, for example to make a murder appear like an accident. Now for real numbers though, how many automobile "accidents" are deliberate compared to how many are truly accidental? I would guess the percentage is extremely small. Now how many computer attacks are accidental? How many times has someone (without your help) "accidentally" obtained information about you from your computer? Again that is an insignificant percentage. Therefore seat belts are a solution to a totally different type of problem than computer attacks. That's what "false analogy" means. As I already explained, deliberate attacks are prevented by laws generally, not computer technology. Have you ever visited a restaurant or other business where you gave the person serving you your credit card? What prevents them using that number and information to buy something for themselves without your permission? Card technology? Of course not. People don't steal credit card numbers because they would get caught in the real world, not the cyber world. Fear of the law is almost totally ineffective in preventing accidents. That is to say that where an accident does happen all parties involved were at least trying to do what the law told them to do (at least as they understood it). Fear of the law is almost totally effective against cyber attacks because someone has to deliberately take the very real chance of getting caught. The antivirus story you told is ridiculous. Such software only works against threats it knows. In other words old threats. In other words threats made up by confederates of the people who sold you the antivirus. That's how they "know" the virus in the first place, because they are in on it. There are only two basic types of computer files, data and "program" files. It has been that way since Atari computers. In order for a threat to gain access to your computer it must be in a "program" file or one that "executes" on your computer. For example .exe, .js, .vbs, .ps1 and such files. That's why browsers have an option to disable scripts (like .js). Text files, database files, image and video files cannot execute on their own. Malicious code in data files can never compromise your computer by themselves. They would need the executable file that runs them to contain the actual threat to recognize them and put them to work. For example a corrupted text file (.txt) is totally harmless unless some program that reads it, maybe Notepad.exe, is also otherwise infected with code to recognize the infection in the text file and put it to some use. The notion that hackers can keep "finding" holes in operating systems is absurd. That any holes exist in the first place is almost as absurd, but at least possible. That's why a ten year old CD is safe. All the holes have been found, there are no more. If hackers can access an operating system after all the "flaws" in it have been fixed, if hackers can access a totally secure OS, then you are foolish to waste effort trying to make it more secure. QED. The truth of the matter is that your computer can be very safe, the internet is another story. Remember what I said about executable files being the only kind through which a threat can enter? Well, any browser, no matter which one, is such an executable itself. Browsers can and will spy on you at least. They can even do more if some idiot at the company controls thinks they should. Yes there are idiots at the controls, but there isn't much you can do about that except being careful hiring computer techs. One way to help ensure your browser is not compromising your security is to use a time tested one from the original installation CD, not an "update" from the internet. You might know Google Chrome for Windows likes to update itself. If you use it on Windows XP or Vista it complains that those operating systems are "no longer supported" and it won't "update" anymore for those. I use it anyway as well as Mozilla. The version of Mozilla I use is from a file I saved long ago and it doesn't ask to update from there. That way I can be the more certain it has no unusual access. I use Chrome because it won't update itself anymore (at least not after the initial installation which must be online). You used so many words to convey nothing. Reality is not what you want it to be. Anti-virus software doesn't only eliminate viruses that it could on the date you install it. It eliminates anything for which its database has been updated. You need to continuously update it. It's not my subjective opinion but an objective fact. My "many words" are true, each and every one. You failed to address any of them. You failed to show that seat belts and antivirus software address a similar problem. They do not -- and that is my winning point therefore. It is a false analogy. You failed to show that antivirus protection comes from software. I showed that it comes from fear of breaking the law in the real world, not from computer technology. While you have admitted more than once that computer technology is ineffective in preventing virus. You never made any case that hackers have no fear of getting caught in the real world whatsoever. I won that point as well. Another point you failed to address is how operating systems can continue to develop "holes" after the few they started with are fixed. Wow! There is only one wonder here. How do so many people actually believe updates make any sense? It's the same way they don't understand anything else and why we have the ridiculous excuse for a government we have now. Something has to be done about people like that running things. How do you dare say my words "convey nothing"? Your few words convey nothing. "You need to continuously update it" is a plain statement with no substantiation whatsoever, no argument whatsoever. "It's not my subjective opinion but an objective fact" is also unsubstantiated. I realize many people believe or claim to believe updates make sense. That doesn't mean they know anything at all but what they copy off each others papers. Here's what happens. People like me just let people like you believe whatever you want. It's too much trouble to make you understand anything. If you want to fling your money away on nonsense, go fling. Meanwhile I'm using Windows XP and you can't touch me.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 4, 2017 21:44:07 GMT
I see you believe that security updates make sense. They do not make sense. There is never any time when when you are secure. Or if there is when is that? Obviously you cannot say. Then you have no business saying I'm wrong. If you believe they make any sense then you're not critically analyzing what you're told by the crowd, you're just accepting it regardless how little sense it makes. Security updates make sense because they address the discovered vulnerabilities of a piece of software that have been uncovered after their release, no one claims that a computer is magically secure after an update, just that the known vulnerabilities have been patched. This is a prime example of why a little knowledge is dangerous. for emphasis,
Then shouldn't an operating system eventually be virus proof? Shouldn't the "vulnerabilities" run out? All get fixed? Then when the processor speed no longer changes, and memory and storage are way beyond what anyone has any use for, shouldn't there be no need at all for a new operating system?
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 4, 2017 23:33:08 GMT
You used so many words to convey nothing. Reality is not what you want it to be. Anti-virus software doesn't only eliminate viruses that it could on the date you install it. It eliminates anything for which its database has been updated. You need to continuously update it. It's not my subjective opinion but an objective fact. My "many words" are true, each and every one. You failed to address any of them. You failed to show that seat belts and antivirus software address a similar problem. They do not -- and that is my winning point therefore. It is a false analogy. You failed to show that antivirus protection comes from software. I showed that it comes from fear of breaking the law in the real world, not from computer technology. While you have admitted more than once that computer technology is ineffective in preventing virus. You never made any case that hackers have no fear of getting caught in the real world whatsoever. I won that point as well. Another point you failed to address is how operating systems can continue to develop "holes" after the few they started with are fixed. Wow! There is only one wonder here. How do so many people actually believe updates make any sense? It's the same way they don't understand anything else and why we have the ridiculous excuse for a government we have now. Something has to be done about people like that running things. How do you dare say my words "convey nothing"? Your few words convey nothing. "You need to continuously update it" is a plain statement with no substantiation whatsoever, no argument whatsoever. "It's not my subjective opinion but an objective fact" is also unsubstantiated. I realize many people believe or claim to believe updates make sense. That doesn't mean they know anything at all but what they copy off each others papers. Here's what happens. People like me just let people like you believe whatever you want. It's too much trouble to make you understand anything. If you want to fling your money away on nonsense, go fling. Meanwhile I'm using Windows XP and you can't touch me. Your words don't merit any response. He never claimed that seat belts and software address a similar issue. He indicated that seat belts and air bags can't make you 100% safe just like system updates so why would you use seat belts and air bags if you completely rule out using system updates. Your understanding of software update is zero. Apart from fixing many bugs, update may even add functionality to your software. You don't have to keep on writing tons of nonsense because you have a terrible stance on this matter.
|
|