Skip to main content

Really Unhelpful Advice...


A quick summary of the following article - http://www.neowin.net/news/from-my-cold-dead-hands-living-without-updates - would be: Updates are bad, don't do updates.

That unhelpful advice isn't from me and is not recommended by me, nor endorsed by me. You should run from the advice this author posits.
It is is really unhelpful and a disservice to many. As such I was compelled to comment. 
To wit:
I'm sorry, but I think this article and the point of view it puts forward are irresponsible.
As a software engineer, I know (and hate to admit) there are bugs in every released piece of software. Updates to patch these problems (whether or not they are problems visible to users or IT) need to take place. An un-patched bug translates to a vulnerability. Why would you promote vulnerable systems? For instance, would you recommend leaving an Android system un-patched that is vulnerable to the StageFright security hole?
I have used known vulnerabilities in Windows XP (missing some up-to-date patches) and easy to find tools, to crack an administrator's password and create my own administrators account. Or in other words to own the system. The weak spots are where you hack and you count on people and systems having some weak spot, somewhere. You look for the easy ones first. Just because you don't know about it happening, doesn't mean it hasn't, can't or won't.
Many of the me-too comments assume threats will be on the other-side of the network, or there are Antivirus & malware protections in place on targets, or that other security measures will protect them. Defense in depth should be mantra, a guiding principle for anyone responsible for the care and feeding of a system that runs software. Why give away any level of defense?
I'll give the author "the out" to separate updates that fix problems from updates that include additional functionality. Additional functionality is usually adding bugs and is mostly related to revenue generation or market share and competitiveness. I would call the former "patches" and the later "upgrades" and I would say that they should be separate.
But a blanket "no updates"? No thanks.
Labels:

Comments

Unknown said…
I totally agree, but this requires reading on the users part and some understanding of the nomenclature used by the vendors.
10:41 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

You don't really know who you're talking to online...

The following is a story that I think highlights the assumptions that get you into trouble online... https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/threat-insight/i-knew-you-were-trouble-ta456-targets-defense-contractor-alluring-social-media This is particularly scary since we found so much utility in online connections during the pandemic and out of necessity, started trusting more online. Please note the timeline for this breach - it was a long, slow process, a key factor in many 'cons'. "Build trust" is a key first step, once someone has identified you as a party. You think...you're convinced you know who your talking to, but if you don't triangulate the identity with some non-online, ideally in-person information, you shouldn't trust. And even if you do get what seems like real-life confirmations of identity, you must look at questioning motives, needs, and keeping danger at arms-length. Online includes email, texting (sms), application chatbots, voice communicati...
Post a Comment
Read more

Threat Modeling Manifesto

Secure Your Code with Threat Modeling As a software developer, security should be a top priority. By proactively identifying and addressing potential vulnerabilities, you can significantly reduce the risk of breaches and data loss. What is Threat Modeling?   Threat modeling is a systematic approach to identifying, assessing, and mitigating security threats. It involves looking at your system from a hacker's perspective to uncover weaknesses and devise strategies to protect against attacks. See the  OWASP Cheat Sheet   Why is Threat Modeling Important? Proactive Security: By anticipating potential threats, you can take steps to prevent them. Risk Mitigation: Identify and address vulnerabilities before they can be exploited. Regulatory Compliance: Adhere to industry standards and regulations. Enhanced Security Posture: Strengthen your overall security posture. How to Get Started with Threat Modeling   The Threat Modeling Manifesto provides a valuable framewor...
Post a Comment
Read more

Where threat modeling can shine - an example from the EU MDCG-2019

From the  EU  MDCG 2019-16 Guidance on Cybersecurity for medical devices, December 2019 , this is the guidance on foreseeable risks.  Medical device manufacturers should ensure that a medical device is designed and manufactured in a way that ensures that the risks associated with reasonably foreseeable environmental conditions are removed or minimised. This may include the infield monitoring of the software’s vulnerabilities and the possibility to perform a device update (outside the context of a field safety corrective action) through, for example delivering patches to ensure the continued security of the device. During the risk management process, the manufacturer should foresee or evaluate the potential exploitation of those vulnerabilities that may be a result of reasonably foreseeable misuse. This, however, may depend on the specific situation. For example, using an unsecured memory-stick to enter data into a medical IT system can be considered “reasonably foreseeabl...
Post a Comment
Read more