Ransomware - has this made you rethink your platform choice

[daflake]

Of course when an OS loses support, government and companies should move away from it. That's only logical. Why don't they? I can't answer that. You'll have to ask them.

Your argument was that government and companies are more lucrative and better targets. Maybe... But if they are so lucrative, why don't they upgrade to newer, supported OSes?

So you are saying that Apple users have more money so they should be the targets instead of the government or some business?

Why don't they upgrade? Good question. Perhaps you should ask the NHS rather than me. We are currently running Win10 with no problems with a few systems on 7 until software updates come from our vendors. That being said, they will all be done by the end of this year. We were mandated to get off XP over five years ago due to security concerns and lack of support.

 

[pastrychef]

So you are saying that Apple users have more money so they should be the targets instead of the government or some business?

Why don't they upgrade? Good question. Perhaps you should ask the NHS rather than me. We are currently running Win10 with no problems with a few systems on 7 until software updates come from our vendors. That being said, they will all be done by the end of this year. We were mandated to get off XP over five years ago due to security concerns and lack of support.

If you are deploying ransomware, would you target victims with money or those without?

I have no idea why they don't upgrade. I don't care to know.

 

[daflake]

If you are deploying ransomware, would you target victims with money or those without?

I have no idea why they don't upgrade. I don't care to know.

I'm not even sure how to answer this... Since you don't seem to care, I guess we have reached an impass. Have a great night, it is past my bedtime.

 

[Queen6]

I don't know the right answer for how long an OS should be supported. All I know is that a fix existed and it was held back because they wanted to profit from it.

Someone earlier in the thread suggested that the reason why there are less attacks on macOS may be the result of security through obscurity and that's what I was disputing. I felt that studies have been made that show Mac users to be more affluent and, therefore, better targets for criminals looking to profit.

That's when someone said companies are even more lucrative... Well, they didn't have the funds to pay for the fix that Microsoft was trying to sell and they they didn't spend to upgrade to newer versions of Windows....

Truthfully think your looking for extremes, MS was willing to support legacy OS at a price, as the development isn't free. As for OS X footprint is simply not relevant versus Windows. I have always maintained and continue to do so, if OS X is compromised it will spread like wildfire as so many fail to secure their systems adequately.

Q-6

 

[pastrychef]

Truthfully think your looking for extremes, MS was willing to support legacy OS at a price, as the development isn't free. As for OS X footprint is simply not relevant versus Windows. I have always maintained and continue to do so, if OS X is compromised it will spread like wildfire as so many fail to secure their systems adequately.

Q-6

I don't know what will happen in the future, but as of today, I'm as confident in macOS as I've ever been.

 

[Queen6]

I don't know what will happen in the future, but as of today, I'm as confident in macOS as I've ever been.

Same for both Windows 10 & OS X, equally a little precaution goes a long way...

Q-6

 

[Mikael H]

Yes. The article is about the XP patch. It was held back for the purpose of trying to profit from those still running XP. It was released after the widespread wanna cry outbreak and more damage control than good will. So, it was either pay Microsoft their ransom or be vulnerable to ransomware. Lose-lose in my book.

While I'm not extremely fond of Microsoft's practices let's just get things straight:
There is still a small group of customers who have paid for support for Windows XP/Server 2003. The patch was created for them. They wouldn't have to pay extra for the patch; they pay handsomely anyway to be able to keep using a supported version of an otherwise deprecated operating system.

In this specific case, Microsoft decided to release these patches to the public even though the systems "should" no longer be in commercial use practically anywhere.

 

[Pangalactic]

Buy a good antivirus, set to weekly scan, don't click phishy links. Boom, problem solved! Had 0 viruses/adware/malware in over 15 years.

 

[ardchoille50]

I've been on Apple products since 2012 (iPhones, iPads, iPods, Apple TV, Mac mini) and I have never seen any ransomware.

 

[maflynn]

I've been on Apple products since 2012 (iPhones, iPads, iPods, Apple TV, Mac mini) and I have never seen any ransomware.

JavaScript-Based Safari Ransomware Exploit Patched in iOS 10.3
OS X Users Hit by Ransomware Websites Posing as FBI Notices
New macOS ransomware spotted in the wild

The last link is more about the encrypting ransomware we think of, but the first two do fall into the category of ransomware.

While OS X certainly has safeguards, its not immune to malware. The days of blindly thinking that OS X is "safe" are over imo - Ransomware is a growing risk on Macs

 

[lowendlinux]

But Unix

 

[ardchoille50]

JavaScript-Based Safari Ransomware Exploit Patched in iOS 10.3
OS X Users Hit by Ransomware Websites Posing as FBI Notices
New macOS ransomware spotted in the wild

The last link is more about the encrypting ransomware we think of, but the first two do fall into the category of ransomware.

While OS X certainly has safeguards, its not immune to malware. The days of blindly thinking that OS X is "safe" are over imo - Ransomware is a growing risk on Macs

I appreciate what you're saying, but the user is always the weakest link in the chain when it comes to computers. I'm extremely picky about what I do with my computers and I ignore questionable content/links. I'm one of those old-fashioned people who believe the Internet would be a much better place without media, social networking, executable files, scripts, advertisements, etc.

 

[0989383]

I think anybody refusing to update almost deserves to get ransomware.

That's pretty much the entire point in those incremental updates;- bug fixes and security patches.

"Oh it'll slow down my phone". Personally I'd take that over losing my content etc.

 

[Kierikka]

No. I backup my computers to both a networks storage, harddrives that I leave at my sisters place and online iCloud. If something would happen I can restore everything. I am more worried to get the Macbook or MacBook Pro stolen then infected as an infection I can easily fix.

But I have got Chromebooks to my kids as computers. They don´t need computers for games, photoediting, videoediting or things like that what I need it for. Games and things like that they use game consoles or iPad/iPhones. They only use the computer for schoolwork and some websurfing. And the computer is easy to wipe if it in some way would be infected.
For that I think that the Chromebook is perfect. I love my Macs och Apple things but I know how to protect myself and would never myself change to anything else then mac. I use a virtual Windows on the computer but only to test websites as I am a webdeveloper.

 

[maflynn]

I think anybody refusing to update almost deserves to get ransomware.

No they don't. No one does.

"Oh it'll slow down my phone". Personally I'd take that over losing my content etc.

Ransomware hits enterprises more then they do hit the consumer and there's a lot of reasons why the business sector runs on older operating systems and/or is more resistant to update. For one thing, updates can break existing enterprise applications and instead of spending thousands, or hundreds of thousands they defer updates. I'm not saying this a sound business decision but if companies run a lot of legacy applications updating one thing can break something else.

My company is keeps things pretty much up to date, but I know of others that are still running windows XP just because their enterprise applications won't run on new versions.

 

[burgman]

No they don't. No one does.


Ransomware hits enterprises more then they do hit the consumer and there's a lot of reasons why the business sector runs on older operating systems and/or is more resistant to update. For one thing, updates can break existing enterprise applications and instead of spending thousands, or hundreds of thousands they defer updates. I'm not saying this a sound business decision but if companies run a lot of legacy applications updating one thing can break something else.

My company is keeps things pretty much up to date, but I know of others that are still running windows XP just because their enterprise applications won't run on new versions.

Cost/benefit analysis is why business systems aren't updated. The new generation of ransomware distributors are script kitties get the software on the dark web for free. In the past companies covered up intrusions and paid, still cheaper than upgrading systems. Now smaller and smaller companies are being hit and pay. Many of the kitties don't do it right and the decryption keys don't work.