Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

XP Systems Getting Emergency IE Zero Day Patch

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the patches-galore dept.

Bug 179

msm1267 (2804139) writes "Microsoft announced it will release an out-of-band security update today to patch a zero-day vulnerability in Internet Explorer, and that the patch will also be made available for Windows XP machines through Automatic Update. At the same time, researchers said they are now seeing attacks specifically targeting XP users.

Microsoft no longer supports XP as of April 8, and that includes the development and availability of security updates. But the about-face today speaks to the seriousness of the vulnerability, which is being exploited in limited targeted attacks, Microsoft said. Researchers at FireEye, meanwhile, said multiple attackers are now using the exploit against XP machines, prompting the inclusion of XP systems in the patch."

cancel ×

179 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Out of Band? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892243)

Cool, When will they patch Windows 3.1?

Oh yeah, I forgot, it's down to userbase isn't it?

Re:Out of Band? (2)

armanox (826486) | about 4 months ago | (#46892261)

Windows 3.1 doesn't support Windows Update.

Actually, 3.1 doesn't include Internet Explorer either, so it's not vulnerable. I don't know if 16-bit IE (I have a VM with IE 5 on 3.11) is vulnerable.

Re:Out of Band? (1)

Teresita (982888) | about 4 months ago | (#46892419)

Actually, 3.1 doesn't include Internet Explorer either, so it's not vulnerable.

Those AOL 3.0 floppies (which is what most people used before Win95) had a custom version of IE. I'm not too worried though, even though I mess with Win 3.1 a lot myself, the malware's 32 bit API calls to modify the registry won't work, not even under Win32s.

Re:Out of Band? (2)

Richy_T (111409) | about 4 months ago | (#46892639)

Or even come with a TCP/IP stack (though it's possible to add one)

Re:Out of Band? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 4 months ago | (#46892697)

there is Windows for Workgroup, and in any case you can put Mosaic on either one to browse web pages

Re:Out of Band? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893113)

there is Windows for Workgroup

That's Windows 3.11

Re:Out of Band? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 4 months ago | (#46893459)

Which is in the Windows 3.1 (Janus) series

Re:Out of Band? (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 4 months ago | (#46893703)

Streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch

hacking windows xp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892391)

is like pimping a 2 dollar whore.

Re:Out of Band? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892395)

(Floppy) discs will be sent out soon for registered users.

just kill them already (-1, Troll)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 4 months ago | (#46892273)

Seriously? Like you need to encourage these people. Just let them get hacked and get rid of their internet-connected XP machines already. They're 7+ years old! If they're using them for web surfing AND using IE8 to do it, you should not be assisting people that stupid.

It's not secret that if you pay MS money, they'll keep patching XP and if you don't, they'll pretend like they're not patching it but I STILL think they shouldn't do anything to help people who are that dumb.

Re:just kill them already (5, Insightful)

Ionized (170001) | about 4 months ago | (#46892355)

the problem is when they get hacked, they aren't going to get rid of their machines or go offline.

they will just become one more in the zombie army, and the REST of us end up suffering.

Microsoft is doing the right thing here.

Re:just kill them already (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892665)

The right thing would be to submit a patch to remove their network drivers. if they know how to reinstall them, let them take the risk.

Re:just kill them already (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 4 months ago | (#46893433)

One would think if they know how to reinstall their network drivers they'd be just fine in keeping their system secure enough.

What idiot would trust Automatic Update ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892717)

Make sure you have a backup before you turn on "Automatic Update".
And remember, when your updated system crashes, you won't get any support from MS.
Good Luck

Not Hacked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893293)

Well, they aren't being "hacked".

A researcher is merely trying to ascertain the security level of the systems.

After finding any vulnerabilities, they will down load whatever valuable data they find and post it as an example of how insecure the system was. It's all done with the best of intentions.

Re:just kill them already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893435)

Microsoft is doing the right thing here.

And in the process giving XP users less reason to switch to another browser like firefox that still does receive security updates on XP.

After all, it is a hellavu lot easier to switch to a new browser than it is to switch to a new OS.

Re:just kill them already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893633)

I see where you are coming from. But there is an element of moral hazard to this too.

I think the last patch that Microsoft should push to XP should be a patch removing all of the networking stack.

Re:just kill them already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892489)

I'm using XP on most of my desktop machines still. Whatcha gonna do 'bout it?

Glad MS has done this. It's a big and hilarious Fuck You to the HURRR BLACK HAT HAX0RS who have been sitting on vulnerabilities until last month.

Re:just kill them already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893655)

I'm using XP on most of my desktop machines still. Whatcha gonna do 'bout it?

But are you using IE or a more secure and standards-compliant browser like FireFox or Chrome?
-----
Posted from my XP machine.

Re:just kill them already (3, Insightful)

holostarr (2709675) | about 4 months ago | (#46892493)

XP is used in many commercial products which cannot easily be replaced by the end user. For example: http://rightfast.com/index.php... [rightfast.com]

Re:just kill them already (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892575)

Oh man, serves them well. When I go to that website I get "Your browser doesn't support Javascript". Seriously. The rest of the world disagrees though. If they can't make a website without depending on explorer specific js hacks it's no wonder they write software for specific OSes too.

Re:just kill them already (2)

holostarr (2709675) | about 4 months ago | (#46892679)

That is just a merchant site, their site works regardless of what browser you are using, however, it requires Javascript since it is Ajax based. My point is there are many businesses who use products which are running on top of XP and cannot simply be replaced because Microsoft has stopped support for the OS.

Re:just kill them already (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 4 months ago | (#46892607)

But they can be and are not bought by intelligent IT workers who review them ahead of time.

Re:just kill them already (2)

holostarr (2709675) | about 4 months ago | (#46892739)

It has nothing to do with intelligent IT workers, majority of times these purchase decisions are made outside the knowledge of IT, the IT department is simply tasked afterwards with the support. Even if IT is involved, a lot of times politics are involved to a point where the OS is not even considered as a topic. Also many of times you have very little choice when it comes to what OS the appliance supports, you may not have a choice.

Re:just kill them already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892899)

LOL at the idea IT has anything to do with purchasing. Back to school, Timmy. When you hit the real world you'll understand.

Re:just kill them already (4, Interesting)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about 4 months ago | (#46893747)

XP is used in many commercial products which cannot easily be replaced by the end user. For example: http://rightfast.com/index.php... [rightfast.com]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there's nothing wrong with XP in an embedded environment (such as in a bank's ATM). Exploits in most operating systems are almost always related to application-level attack surfaces, such as IE and Flash (as was this particular vulnerability). In a point of sale unit, there is no one surfing the web with the browser. As long as the front-facing application and hardware are properly locked down, there should be no problems. Note that Target's POS data breach was NOT done through the machines themselves, but through the backend network itself. Granted, lack of address space randomization makes it an easier target, but note carefully that the exploit discussed in the article was available on ALL platforms and IE versions, not just XP/IE6.

Where a company or user will get into trouble is if they're using Windows XP + IE6 in a user-controlled, internet-facing computer. And let's be clear here, it's been IE6 and not really XP that was the problem since the latest patches and the firewall was turned on by default. If they rely on IE6, then there's a good bet that they also rely on Flash or a Java plugin as well, and that's just tripling your attack surface, especially if they're not kept up to date as well for reasons of compatibility or laziness.

There's sort of a media feeding frenzy about Windows XP and it's end-of-life. Yes, people should move on to a supported OS as soon as it's practical, but XP users can greatly reduce their risk simply by using up-to-date applications. Use Chrome or Firefox when browsing, and if possible remove Flash and Java (I actually removed Flash about half a year ago for security reasons, and found that, for the most part, I don't really need it anymore). Note that this exploit was performed with the help of Flash as well - nothing to do with XP.

Re:just kill them already (5, Funny)

datapharmer (1099455) | about 4 months ago | (#46892595)

Car analogy: I told the used car dealer to stop selling that garbage and just send all his vehicles to the dump. I mean they were all from like 2007 or before! I mean seriously, who uses a car that old (except for all the retro ones that were sold up until 2012 - and those suck too. They aren't hip at all)? They don't have the latest rear view cameras and other safety equipment or anything. It is no secret if you buy the after market warranty you can get your crappy old car fixed, but if you don't it isn't my problem you can't get parts when you need them because you are a dumb poopy pants. I throw everything away because there is a newer model that surely must be better because new and shiny!

Re:just kill them already (0)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 4 months ago | (#46892725)

Wow, that's an utterly stupid analogy. No one is still selling Windows XP, and I doubt anyone cares if someone resells their old computer with XP on it. The problem is that people want Microsoft to continue issuing security patches for XP, even though no one (except for some governments) is actually paying MS for this service.

No one expects Ford or Toyota to do recalls for 20+ year old cars when safety problems are discovered. Everyone with a brain knows that quarter-century-old cars do not offer nearly the crash protection that newer cars do, but there's no push to get automakers to somehow retrofit old cars to meet modern crash standards. But somehow MS is expected to provide endless support for an ancient OS?

Re:just kill them already (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893357)

The fuck are you on about, cunt? Our household just had a safety mailout+free fix on one of our 15 year old Nissans. I don't know much about Ford nor Toyota, but Nissans aren't hipster cars, so you're not expected to landfill them after your Applecare runs out.

And expecting an old car to come up to modern safety regulations isn't the same thing as finding that it has always had a fault which would have been immediately so identified if spotted during manufacturing.

So many people angry today because MS does something responsible and impossible to attack with reason alone.

Re:just kill them already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893615)

No one expects Ford or Toyota to do recalls for 20+ year old cars when safety problems are discovered.

XP was still being sold to OEMs until late in 2010, and I'd expect computers running XP were probably on the shelves until mid 2011.

So, yes, people do expect security fixes for a three-year-old computer.

Re:just kill them already (3, Informative)

ledow (319597) | about 4 months ago | (#46892955)

Ironically, my laptop cost a lot more than my car.

The analogy isn't really fair, though. Your car doesn't get pulled abut and poked and investigated by random wandering people throughout the entire day looking for a vulnerability. Even in a crime-ridden area. Your car isn't a guardian on the front line between all your financial, personal and secret information and the public Internet (whether you have a firewall or not, the OS is still the guardian of your data here).

And, still, cars get recalled, discontinued, or just taken off the road no matter their age. If it's not a "vintage" car, good luck as it gets older getting it to pass whatever your local roadworthiness test is, especially with shrinking emission limits and tightened safety requirements.

I speak as someone whose car is 15 years old - I wouldn't touch a PC over 4-years-old for my own use unless it was incredibly well-managed (and, yes, I manage networks for a living and have managed much older PC's adequately - I'm only two years past a XP->Windows 8, Office 2003->2013, Server 2003->Server 2012R2 upgrade, precisely because it worked and it was managed adequately, but we still couldn't carry it forever). I speak as someone who buys an "old banger" of a car every time my one won't pass the next test or starts edging out of roadworthiness, and never pays more than the cheapest of new laptops for the next one.

XP is dead. Kill it. Stop dragging it. It was good and fun while it lasted, but 7 or even 8 (with some tweaks) isn't that much of a loss at all. And I've yet to see a decent reason for a program you are using not to be updated to run on 7 (and, sorry, that matters more than anything else - the OS is irrespective if you're putting all your trust, money and maybe even life / business into an app that people can't be bothered to maintain once a decade or so).

I've put people on Ubuntu in the in-between. I've pulled Windows 8 into a system people can recognise and get along with. I've needed to support the most dumb, and the most eager, and the most knowledgeable users simultaneously.

But XP is dead. The fact that I acknowledge it is extremely telling. I never kill anything without a purpose. It's tricky to even install the fucking thing on anything approaching modern hardware (a lot of BIOS do not support legacy IDE any more, and SATA installs can be a minefield of AHCI drivers in XP).

You want to keep it? Install Linux and virtualise it. But, for fuck's sake, stop running it as the primary barrier between your personal files, local network and the Internet (no Internet firewall in the world can stop you getting infected and spewing your data OUT of the network, especially in the consumer/home use price ranges).

Re:just kill them already (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892623)

For some of us, MS Windows is only useful for legacy application. For instance, up to this year I had a production machine running XP. It is old and cannot be upgraded to MS Windows 7 or 8. but was running programs that I needed. I will phase out the programs and machine, but there was hardly a reason to buy a new machine. Like many other people, I do run MS Windows to do work, and when doing work something old is often good enough.

In addition, MS made a decision to push IE only web coding into the 21st century. As such there are intranet pages out there that still require IE. Again, it may not be cost effective to upgrade or replace these machines. Why should the MS business model drive the internal requirements of a small office?

"Why should the MS business model drive the inter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892973)

Because they choose to buy from MS. If they wanted not to be driven by MS business model, they shouldn't have bought Windows XP in first place. They made their choices, now will suffer the consequences.

Re:just kill them already (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 4 months ago | (#46892655)

No, it's easy. You only install the services you ne...

I'm sorry, I just can't keep a straight face anymore.

Re:just kill them already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892695)

Look, XP is still perfectly fine for people who only read their emails and things like that. Why should they fork up $400+ for a new PC they don't need just because the current one is "old", yet works perfectly fine for their purpose?

Re:just kill them already (0)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 4 months ago | (#46893095)

Switch them over to Linux, and they'll never know the difference except that they won't have to reboot several times a day.

Re:just kill them already (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 4 months ago | (#46893331)

That's fine, as long as no security issues get discovered in XP that Microsoft decides are not worth their effort to fix, but which are still serious enough to compromise the user's network.

If a vulnerability that turns an XP machine into a zombie that can endlessly send out spam emails, for instance, it's a pretty safe bet that their ISP will simply disconnect them and won't allow them to reconnect until they are using a newer version of the OS.

Re:just kill them already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893385)

If the one they have works perfectly fine they should stop bitching about how they don't get updates.

If you think you need updates you clearly don't think your system works fine as is.

Re:just kill them already (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893401)

There are a lot of people out there who may not be able to afford better hardware, or a copy of Windows 7. Given a choice between a roof over the head versus an upgrade of Windows, I'm sure not many would choose homelessness.

Then there is the fact that a lot of XP systems cannot be upgraded, and are part of an embedded system. A friend of mine has a $9000.00 sewing machine that runs XP, and if one tries to stick W7 on it, it won't have the drivers to move the embroidery head.

Then there is software that requires XP to function. Another friend of mine has a CNC mill for 2D wood carving that he copies data to a full size PCMCIA card. The reader/writer on the computer will not work with Vista or newer, and it won't work in a VM, so it is XP or nothing.

People don't -want- to run XP... but a lot have to. Just like the guy who drives the 10 year old Honda Civic. It isn't because he is in love with the car, but that he can't afford a new car, or he has other priorities.

That deteriorated quickly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892281)

for Microsoft.

Re:That deteriorated quickly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892455)

One word, lawsuit.

They must have realized whta waited for them if they had not patched.

Re:That deteriorated quickly. (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about 4 months ago | (#46893829)

One word, explain.

Re:That deteriorated quickly. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893877)

Microsoft has the patch with the fix but they refuse to release it, meaning instant lawsuit.

WTF (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892289)

Patching a dead OS just confuses users. No, really, this OS is dead except sometimes.

Re:WTF (4, Funny)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 4 months ago | (#46892449)

I know right, like recalling cars out of warranty.

Re:WTF (2)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 4 months ago | (#46892629)

Good luck getting a 15 year warranty on your car.

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892823)

My 13 year old car (out of warranty) just had a recall repair done to it, so yeah...

Re:WTF (2)

wcrowe (94389) | about 4 months ago | (#46893125)

The auto manufacturer is responsible for safety recalls for a very long time, if not forever. I've gotten safety recalls for cars that I haven't owned in years and that are way past the warranty period. I was the last known owner, so I got the letter.

This kind of thing is very much like a safety recall for cars, except it is for an operating system.

Re:WTF (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 4 months ago | (#46893835)

Same here, I had a recall for my 2002 Ford Ranger a few years ago. I haven't owned that truck since 2007.
The recall had something to do with an ignition switch catching fire...even when the vehicle was not in use. Last I checked I don't think anyone's comp was at risk of bursting into flames due to a security patch not being installed.
Car comparisons won't work on this because if cars aren't recalled for dangerous flaws, owners and other people are in danger of injury or death. The only way my computer is going to kill someone is if i use it to beat them to death with it
(or if I play games on it for days on end.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]
http://www.smh.com.au/articles... [smh.com.au]
And there are a shit ton more articles on that topic...

Re:WTF (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 months ago | (#46893969)

The auto manufacturer is responsible for safety recalls for a very long time, if not forever.

They're responsible for ten years from the date the recall is issued, unless it's a seatbelt or maybe airbag recall. I believe seatbelt recalls are forever, not sure about airbag recalls but I'd bet the same way on them.

That's smart (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about 4 months ago | (#46892385)

1) Stockpile exploits for Windows XP until after Microsoft no longer releases updates for it.
2) Hack XP users.
3) Profit!

Re:That's smart (1, Insightful)

Teresita (982888) | about 4 months ago | (#46892441)

But the about-face today speaks to the seriousness of the vulnerability...

No, it speaks to the seriousness of letting 30% of the PC user base twist in the wind, and start thinking about 2020 when the same thing will happen to 7, and maybe start browsing the Apple stores.

Re:That's smart (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892533)

Soo... apple is still releasing patches for OSX v10.1 "Puma", which came out the same time as XP originally... or is it that the OS X v10.5.8, the last supported OS by many of the machines from that time period (and came out between XP SP2 and SP3, to put things in perspective), is still getting security updates? Because the answer is no and no.

In fact, the oldest OSX which is still getting security updates (Lion) was released not quite three years ago. Great.

Re:That's smart (5, Informative)

Himmy32 (650060) | about 4 months ago | (#46893021)

Apple isn't even releasing updates for Snow Leopard from 5 years ago. Which 20% of their user base is on...

Reality distortion field on.

Microsoft has no spine. (1, Informative)

Lumpio- (986581) | about 4 months ago | (#46892463)

"XP support is over" my ass.

Re:Microsoft has no spine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892525)

"XP support is over" my ballsack.

Re:Microsoft has no spine. (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 4 months ago | (#46892621)

"XP support is over" my hammy.

Re:Microsoft has no spine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893025)

"XP support is over" my whore house filled with fleas.

Re:Microsoft has no spine. (5, Insightful)

rujasu (3450319) | about 4 months ago | (#46892557)

Yes, how dare they provide support for a large percentage of their userbase, rather than try to force their users to pay them more money for the latest version! Those bastards!

Seriously, I get that XP is old and there are real disadvantages to its continued use, but it's amazing to me that we've actually reached the point where MS is getting flack for not adhering strongly enough to planned obsolescence. Like, we want them to be greedier now and stop providing free updates? I'd like to believe that they'll continue supporting Win7 for quite some time. I don't particularly like the idea of forced paid upgrades, or the "subscription Windows" that everyone seems to think is coming.

I'd love it if people would start moving off of XP and onto modern OS'es, but that's not going to happen right away regardless of what MS does, and I'm not going to knock them for supporting their product long-term.

Re:Microsoft has no spine. (2)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 4 months ago | (#46892755)

I agree with you. I don't know one XP user that would pay for a subscription. MS is a business and for some reason the expectation is that they should continue supporting the product at no charge. Yet we don't have that expectation of anything else in life. The software world always gets shafted.

I had customers contacting me regarding a 10 year old project with a bug recently discovered. I sent them a quote to fix the issue and they asked me why I was charging to fix the software. They also told me they expected the software to work on Windows 2012 Server which I never tested... Oh well!!!

Re:Microsoft has no spine. (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 4 months ago | (#46893189)

I don't know one XP user that would pay for a subscription.

Allow me to introduce you to one...

http://www.engadget.com/2014/0... [engadget.com]

Re:Microsoft has no spine. (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 4 months ago | (#46892775)

Why should they continue to spend money to support an ancient OS that no one is buying any more? They're not receiving any new revenue for it, so why should they continue to support it? Who would expect any company to continue to support obsolete products a decade or more after they were sold, without some kind of service contract? In most places, a 1 or 2-year warranty is all you can expect.

I'd rather see them stop supporting XP at all, for anyone. If people don't like that, they should switch to something else. If this is a problem for them, they should have thought about that before assuming that XP would somehow be supported for the rest of their lives.

Re:Microsoft has no spine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892957)

Perhaps because instead of just fixing bugs these years, they have used updates as an excuse to add more features to suit their needs.
      WGA was my all time favorite.

If the do actually stop supporting it, then 'nix and wine works mighty fine.

Re:Microsoft has no spine. (4, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | about 4 months ago | (#46893053)

They're not receiving any new revenue for it, so why should they continue to support it?

Because they're acting as a responsible corporate entity, maybe? It must be shocking to Apple users to see something like this, but Microsoft has actually been a relatively responsible, responsive company for a long time, now.

Re:Microsoft has no spine. (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46892827)

They should support it as long as they hold copyright on it. When the support ends, it should be put in the public domain.

That should be true for all software (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893647)

When support is dropped, it should be put into the public domain so others can provide support.

Re:Microsoft has no spine. (1)

steelfood (895457) | about 4 months ago | (#46893945)

It's one thing to stop feature updates. That happened once Vista came out. But security updates? That's like knowing that your product is certain to cause property damage after a certain amount of use but still keeping it out in the wild. With non-software, there'd be mass mandatory recalls. At least with software, it's a matter of putting out an update.

And yes, severe security vulnurabilities are a defect in the product and zombies do cause monetary property damage albeit a very small amount individually.

Xp embedded is still getting updates (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892481)

So it not really that big of a deal to also update the desktop xp as well

Re:Xp embedded is still getting updates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892919)

And all of the commercial customers who pay a few hundred bucks a year for "Extended Support". Since Microsoft already wrote the patch for THEIR Windows XP systems, it was even more trivial to throw it on Windows Update.

The reasons for the patch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892539)

They are not to support users. They are not to protect the internet. They are to protect commercial closed software. Richard Stallman was right about this, with closed source you are at the mercy of the company providing it. If more flaws come up, Microsoft will still patch them because otherwise users will flee to alternatives rather than newer Windows versions. Not all of them, but little by little is how you erode monopolies.

Re:The reasons for the patch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893473)

Richard Stallman was right about this, with closed source you are at the mercy of the company providing it.

Ok. What if you wanted to still use, say, KDE3? There's Trinity Desktop [trinitydesktop.org] , but it is not updated regularly due to not having enough interest and/or developer resources. Soon there will be a full year from the last update. So how is this any better? It's open source, right? Sure, you could maintain it yourself, but it would be too complex project for one man to handle. You are still at the mercy of other people.

If more flaws come up, Microsoft will still patch them because otherwise users will flee to alternatives rather than newer Windows versions.

I do not see anything wrong with that. Good that patches are coming. That's commercial software powered by commercial interests. Nothing terribly evil there.

So Microsoft lied (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892551)

Ballmer gave his word that there would be no more updates. You can’t believe a damn thing that asshole says. This further proves that Microsoft is run by Republicans. They don’t give a fuck about their customers or the truth. Again they have proven themselves to be the most dishonest large corporation in the world.

Re:So Microsoft lied (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 4 months ago | (#46892729)

I'll file that right next to Jobs saying in the early 90s he'd never go back to Apple. Proves that Apple is run by those fucking lying Democrats, they don't give a fuck about their customers or the truth....

Re:So Microsoft lied (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 4 months ago | (#46892915)

Well, Jobs never will go back to Apple now ... ;-)

The irony? (2, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | about 4 months ago | (#46892743)

XP updates are initiated via IE.

Re:The irony? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893009)

Hello, Alanis. Still don't know what irony is, eh.

Re:The irony? (1)

antdude (79039) | about 4 months ago | (#46893037)

Is IE still used to download and install through Automatic Updates?

Re:The irony? (1, Informative)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 4 months ago | (#46893091)

No, you can only enable Automatic Updates and wait for them to get pushed down. The Windows Update site has not worked on XP for a couple years now, although I can't remember when it officially happened. It's the same with Windows Server 2003...

Re:The irony? (1)

chiefcrash (1315009) | about 4 months ago | (#46893311)

The windows update site worked for me just fine for me this morning...

Re:The irony? (1)

chiefcrash (1315009) | about 4 months ago | (#46893327)

Redundant "for me" is redundant for me...

Re:The irony? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 months ago | (#46893895)

The Windows Update site has not worked on XP for a couple years now

It works on some of my installs, and not on others. My working theory is that windows installs sometimes get owned during install while doing some kind of autoupdate :)

Re:The irony? (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 4 months ago | (#46893675)

Why does that matter? Unless the Microsoft update site hosts the exploit?

There should be only two options (0, Troll)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46892749)

Either Microsoft continues to accept responsibility for its obsolete systems, or it shall forfeit all copyrights and patents to those systems.

Re:There should be only two options (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893131)

Under what authority? By what legal justification?

Re:There should be only two options (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46893251)

Copyright law

Re:There should be only two options (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893193)

Either Microsoft continues to accept responsibility for its obsolete systems, or it shall forfeit all copyrights and patents to those systems.

I like that idea because legislation like that (which wouldn't be limited to just Microsoft) would screw over Linux and the BSDs royally. Good luck supporting the original kernel release and the early RH releases, freetard.

Re:There should be only two options (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46893275)

You're not making any sense. Anybody is free to update early kernels and any other open software.

Re:There should be only two options (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 4 months ago | (#46893579)

You're not making any sense. Anybody is free to update early kernels and any other open software.

That's true. But the copyrights are still valid. I you want a software regime where [no support] = [copyright lapse], I suggest you contact your congressperson and try to get the copyright laws changed. Good luck with that.

Re:There should be only two options (4, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 4 months ago | (#46893493)

So whenever a company discontinues a product, they relinquish all rights they had to that product? I don't think that's how copyright or patent law works.

Re:There should be only two options (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46893643)

No, but that's how it should work. But the public interest is not what copyright is about.

Re:There should be only two options (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893645)

But it's how copyright law should work. If you won't fix your software, you'd better be ready to hand out the source code to those who will... or forgo any copyright protection.

MSIE 6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46892841)

I tried using Internet explorer 6 on my old Windows XP computer out of curiosity but the browser kept crashing. I guess modern websites use HTML code that MSIE 6 doesn't understand properly.

even when I was able to visit some online stores, the stores told me to upgrade my web browser because MSIE 6 is no longer supported. lol

looks like i will be the first to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893027)

thanks

If you're gonna keep running XP (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 4 months ago | (#46893039)

At least switch to a non-Microsoft browser and email client - something that'll continue to get updated like Firefox, Chrome, Thunderbird, etc.

Re:If you're gonna keep running XP (1)

maz2331 (1104901) | about 4 months ago | (#46893103)

Except, of course, that some business-critical sites will ONLY work with IE. It sucks, but until the vendors fix them, it is what it is.

Re:If you're gonna keep running XP (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 4 months ago | (#46893347)

Vendors?! You mean like a dev team that built an old Intranet site? The same dev team that long disbanded and a copy that doesn't have a migration path to a new platform? Yea, that company is pretty much fucked with their ass hanging in the breeze.

Re:If you're gonna keep running XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893671)

...If you insist on using it, fine. Just keep it off the bloody internet.

I still run MSIE6 on my Windows 95 machine! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46893175)

Where's my patch?? My hardware doesn't have drivers for anything later and MSIE7 won't install onto 95.

Re:I still run MSIE6 on my Windows 95 machine! (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#46893519)

It is now safe to turn off your computer.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?