In
Robert said:
To ignore the resource of Windows Updates as part of your Disaster
Prevention plan, is something best left for the foolhardy or the
unemployed.
I don't know if you ever played chess or not. But the more moves you can
think ahead of the possibilities, generally the better player you are.
Now only examining Windows Updates as part of your Disaster Prevention
plan indeed is a very sounding. Although thinking moves further, the
plan starts to fall apart.
Pros for Windows Updates:
1) Is said the keep your system secure
Cons against Windows Updates
1) "It's not uncommon for major operating system updates to cause
problems. Typically, the glitches are due to conflicts with software,
such as drivers, system files, or applications already resident on the
user's PC."
http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/207600950
"... every service pack release has had some serious growing pains"
http://www.techspot.com/news/29993-issues-with-xp-sp3-plague-many.html
2) "However, it can be easily shown that this window can be several
years long. For example in 2008 Microsoft confirmed a vulnerability in
Internet Explorer, which affected some versions that were released in
2001. The date the vulnerability was first found by an attacker is not
known, however the vulnerability window in this case could have been up
to 7 years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_attack
3) Recent study shows that Windows 98 and Windows 2000 are the safest
Windows OS to deter malware vulnerabilities.
http://net-security.org/malware_news.php?id=1863
I could go on about the cons, but this will do for now. And it has been
my belief that an up-to-date AV real-time scanner will stop malware dead
in its tracks regardless of the security holes in the OS. And since
Microsoft is so slow to plug security vulnerabilities, I too believe
Microsoft also knows trusting in security fixes is just a futile attempt
for security. Otherwise they would take this more seriously. But
pretending they are serious is good PR.
I also have placed about 6 computers up as test computers. I stopped
updating them 3 to 4 years ago and I have monitored them for malware
infections. And so far, none of them has ever been infected. I credit
this from Avast ability to stop malware dead in its tracks, despite the
lack of security updates on a given machine.
So I personally question the value of security updates as a means of
prevention? As the evidence above and there are far more I didn't even
talk about that points to security updates are the weakest link to
security and it isn't to be trusted to protect one's system. As there
are far better methods of security to keep systems malware free.
