[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]Flawed concept. Updating software only keeps some specific malware out but won’t help you against all other types which are the ones actively being developed and used today.[/QUOTE]This is the exactly kinda thinking that hackers want those like you that would think hackers are going to say oh I am going to use this one you here is my source code Please block me. This mindset is the reason malware can spread.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]The only way to protect your computer and network is to research and establish alternative methods of protection, in the case of an individual home user that would be blocking and using good judgement and in the case of a large corporate network blocking more and hiring real security specialists to maintain and monitor your network professionally. Too many companies these days rely on their main IT admin guy, who finished school a year ago and has no cybersec credentials whatsoever and who believes the adequate way of protecting the network is installing the latest security updates… it’s very sad but true. What’s even worse is this mentality has now trickled down to the average consumer.[/QUOTE]No the really good protections is to not visit Porn site or Black sites or open unknown email attachments or Nigeria Money emails. Also unless you are in IT putting down those people does no service to their efforts. One should refrain from making disparaging remarks unless they can prove otherwise.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]I mean it’s great that consumers are more concerned with their security these days than in the past (when they didn’t give it any thought at all) but I am upset that they think the answer is to install updates.[/QUOTE]Your the mindset of the hackers and how they think.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]Security updates are primarily a marketing gimmick these days, serving to bring the software companies profit without actually having to add new features to their programs or in the case of freeware to add various spyware of their own, essentially making your data the product.[/QUOTE]This is laughable since you don’t see what security updates are really meant for.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]The fact is that software companies are not required to patch any vulnerabilities in their software unless they specifically advertised lifetime security updates (in which case not doing so would be false advertising). But yet people expect them to do that anyway without a profit motive? That’s not how the world works - companies are not interested in throwing money at it unless it is going to generate profit directly or indirectly (as is the case with Oracle, extremely bad press for years started decreasing revenue).[/QUOTE]Really not required well you want to go ask their share holds and investment banks would they like their personal info put out for all to see.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]In other words security updates are never intended for your safety, but rather to protect their own bottom line.[/QUOTE]Couldn’t be more misleading then fake news.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, it is how it should be - security should be [B]your[/B] responsibility as an end user and not theirs at all unless otherwise stated, that is not only logical but also much more effective in that in this way malware protection becomes more personalized to your unique situation and therefore effectiveness increases.[/QUOTE]Responsibility is everyone problem not just the users. Not everyone is up to your snuff so stop with being high handed about those whom are less inclined.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]There is no one single fix for security, every single situation is different and should be tackled as such.[/QUOTE]No they are the same and come from the same problem.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]Now I am not necessarily saying that you should never update your software, that’s not my point. What I am trying to get across is that it is not an adequate security measure at all.[/QUOTE]Actually the reasoning you used would seem to indicate otherwise.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]By itself, it is meaningless and hardly adds protection against malware. Blocking, monitoring and changes to user behavior should be your primary protection whether you are one person, a corporation or a governmental organization. Even antivirus companies fully admit that signature based (ie. focused on malware with certain characteristics) antivirus solutions are dead. Security updates fall in the exact same category, they are engineered to prevent malicious code with a certain pre-programmed signature from running. This may have been fine 15 years ago when the majority of malware was based on rBot/rXBot clones but today the malware landscape has evolved so much that this type of protection is essentially useless.[/QUOTE]And you expect the malware makers to give out their code/source so they can stop or block it? Let’s be realistic here.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]I have personally witnessed the security measures taken in different types of organizations and I believe there is a disconnect between how the private sector and governmental agencies handle their networks’ security.[/QUOTE]My witness for security is far more different then yours.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]The difference is that private companies have a vested financial interest in their security whereas the public sector does not. [/QUOTE]More misleading story lines that fits right in with Hackers and malware makers.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]And I think this is the reason that private companies keep up with time, and have given up on signature-based antivirus strategies (including security updates to OS and software) and instead focus their efforts to doing what I discussed about (blocking, monitoring and employing cybersec professionals to manage the network). [/QUOTE]That what IT departs are there for and yet you still disparage them maybe take a look at Snowden he was cybersec professional and look what happened.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]The governmental agencies, I especially have experience in public education facilities, have not done so and continue to rely on the old ways of antivirus+software updates. [/QUOTE]If you don’t like the internet then go offline and never connect that way you will never get DOS or malware. I think this would fit your mindset just fine you will have no more worries.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]Guess which one generates more calls to investigate hacking attempts (and has a higher amount of successful ones)? Then you wonder why our government constantly gets hacked by various third world countries who themselves do not seem to have such problems (Russia, China etc). [/QUOTE]And you think China, Russia is going to advertise oh we got hacked ops my bad…NOT.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]You see they are employing their own version of the functional security measures I talked about. For example, the Russian government uses typewriters in governmental organizations handling sensitive data. This is the ultimate way of blocking, the typewriters cannot physically connect to any network or even have any USB ports so they can’t be penetrated physically. Of course this is not a suitable measure for a developed nation like the United States, as our society is much more complex and handling everything in paper form would pretty much cause chaos. [/QUOTE]You see nothing and know nothing here to make such claims of those other entities and what y they do. They give you the story lines they want you to hear and you took the bait.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]However we can and should take less drastic and reasonable measures in making sure that even if there is a software exploit, it cannot be taken advantage of by malicious entities. [/QUOTE]You really think malware is going to wait not going to happen. Either you update your security updates and O/S or become a botnet. You don’t get to pick and choose anymore.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]Some ways to do this are even free or require very low cost, such as we stop connecting governmental computers on to the internet. [/QUOTE]This is laughable - here something stop using your smart phone because they know where your at and what your doing. I doubt you will do that.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]I just realized I’ve been rambling on again… Anyway let me conclude by making an analogy. You can think of security updates a bit like dietary supplements.[/QUOTE]Couldn’t disagree more with this analogy is so wrong in many ways to go into depth.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]Not only that but a recent study by the University of Colorado has found a link between dietary supplements and cancer so if anything, you’d be worse off… Now same goes for security updates, which by themselves do not protect you from malware except specific versions which are by now too old and of which there are updated and unmitigated versions available, so you’re basically no less at risk than before. Not only that but a lot of security updates come with their own “cancer risk” referring to either the cost of buying them or having to give up your own privacy to advertisers spyware. [/QUOTE]This is the mindset of malware/hackers want users to have.
[QUOTE=aztekk;2787189]The only effective method is to do the smarter choice, the “healthy diet” which in this case refers to the ways I described you can be responsible for your own security, and you can include software updates [B]on top[/B] of that if you want but you cannot have them act as [B]substitute[/B] for being cautious yourself.[/QUOTE]The only think I actually agree with here. User need to know their habits and where not to go but this only works if the site doesn’t force you to another location.